Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Authors

WP:DSAUTHOR

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Authors. 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|Authors|~~~~}} 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 Authors. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.

Further information

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

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

Purge page cache

watch

For the general policy on the inclusion of individual people in Wikipedia, see WP:BIO.

Authors

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) Left guide (talk) 04:38, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Dinan

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

The sources lack in-depth coverage, and some are interviews. The creator has opposed the redirect restoration and wants an AfD. - The9Man ^Talk 11:19, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. - The9Man ^Talk 11:19, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 12:29, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:20, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:40, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: National Geographic and the BBC are about the person and the nuclear company, I suppose that's enough for notability. Source 1 is just photos of a party. Source 17 is about the company, but we should have enough for a basic article. Oaktree b (talk) 13:24, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Oaktree b. Covered by Tatler ([1]) and Evening Standard ([2]) in 2012, BBC News ([3]) in 2017, The Times ([4]) in 2019, National Geographic ([5]) in 2021, and The Spectator ([6]) in 2022. Easily meets WP:GNG. Svenboer (talk) 14:55, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per refs cited by Svenboer and Oaktree b. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 20:31, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY. Bearian (talk) 13:55, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:54, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keith N. Hamilton

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

Fails WP:NBIO and WP:CLERGY (note that the role of bishop in the LDS church closer to that of a Catholic Priest or a Methodist Minister, serving a only a local congregation, than to that of, e.g., a Catholic bishop, which is presumed notable). Sources consist of two articles mentioning Hamilton joining and leaving the Utah Parole board and his current employer's website. Jbt89 (talk) 18:31, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Latter Day Saints and Utah. Jbt89 (talk) 18:31, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:37, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes GNG. [7][8][9] ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 21:45, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, Law, Military, Massachusetts, New Jersey, North Carolina, and Virginia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:23, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Government of Utah has a 22-member Cabinet, which is as large as any cabinet can get before it becomes too large to function. I'm not sure if we have a consensus about whether cabinet members are automatically notable per WP:NPOL. As a Mormon bishop, he only leads a single congregation, so that's run of the mill. Bearian (talk) 04:48, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to vote. A late law client was a former Public Service Commissioner for the State of Utah. This might create a difficult precedent and, potentially, a conflict of interest. His name is being withheld due to confidentiality. Bearian (talk) 20:03, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:03, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Feedback on WikiOriginal-9's sources would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 22:17, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - [1] ticks all the boxes, but I don't think [2] is independent - they advertise his book at the bottom of the article (and the news site shares a parent company with the publisher). I think [3] - even though it's ultimately somewhat routine political coverage - provides enough detail to be considered significant. I also found some more sources in newspapers.com, I'm adding them to the article now. I think this passes GNG. Zzz plant (talk) 00:51, 16 July 2025 (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. ✗plicit 02:37, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Swami Shyam

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

No WP:SIGCOV, fails WP:GNG ProtobowlAddict ^talk! 17:20, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Religion, and India. ProtobowlAddict ^talk! 17:20, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Uttar Pradesh. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:28, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Badly written article for a non notable subject. Zuck28 (talk) 19:36, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:28, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Article reads like a promotional piece. ScalarFactor (talk) 04:12, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Due to lack of substantial coverage, the subject fails WP:GNG. Raj Shri21 (talk) 06:06, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. After spending a few hours researching, I am unable to find any WP:SIGCOV by reliable secondary sources to satisfy WP:GNG. Zach^H007 00:14, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, and WP:TNT. This is not an encyclopedia article: it's an obituary, or an essay, or a memorial. Bearian (talk) 06:55, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. If more sources are found, let me know. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 20:06, 9 July 2025 (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 speedy delete‎. Already speedied as a CSD G3 Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:29, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Küplüceli Öznur

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

This was nominated for speedy deletion as a blatant hoax, and I want to thank user Kerim Demirkaynak for bringing this to our attention. I removed the speedy deletion template. While I agree that it is probably a hoax, I'm not absolutely sure. I tried to locate sources, and came across [10]. While not suitable as a reliable source, this gives a lot more information about the subject than the Wikipedia article or any of its translations. That could be part of the hoax, but I believe that it warrants a closer look.

Even if not a hoax, this article should be deleted as it doesn't meet general notability standards. Renerpho (talk) 17:04, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, and Women. Renerpho (talk) 17:04, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In User talk:Erdyuksel#re Küplüceli Öznur from February 2011, a few days after the creation of the English article, user Herostratus mentions a (no longer existing?) Turkish Wikipedia article, which apparently had additional content that Herostratus suggested might be used to expand the English article. I don't think anything ever came of that. Renerpho (talk) 17:51, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
https://eksisozluk.com/entry/176399582 Creator of the article confessed what she did there. Kolhisli (talk) 17:53, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I was looking for, thanks Kolhisli! English translation at [11]. Renerpho (talk) 17:59, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've added back the speedy deletion template. This removes all doubts for me. Renerpho (talk) 18:03, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kerim Demirkaynak write on the article talk page that This article seems to be a hoax. The subject does not exist and was created as a joke or trolling by a university student. No verifiable sources exist. What evidence is there to corroborate those details, that the author created it as a joke and that they were a university student? Did they admit to writing the hoax somewhere? Renerpho (talk) 17:54, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Kolhisli: Any idea what this edit from January 2024 is about? The editor knew that it was a hoax, and they knew details about its inception. That edit was reverted 3 days later. Renerpho (talk) 18:10, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The information in this edit contradicts the information in the eksisozluk link I posted, since it was admitted that the wikipedia article was created by high school students. However, the same student may have later studied at Boğaziçi University and spread the prank among the students of Boğaziçi University. https://tr.linkedin.com/posts/mkadirtan_k%C3%BCpl%C3%BCceli-%C3%B6znurun-hikayesini-biliyor-musunuz-activity-7328831347366559745-kCqE Kolhisli (talk) 18:25, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh. I hate hoaxes. Renerpho (talk) 18:30, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Poetry and Turkey. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:29, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I mean, look. For individual statements of fact, we aim for 99.3% confidence that it's true. That's the best we can humanly do. That is not met by facts of which it can be said "most probably true" let alone "could be true" or "might not be false". So, "While I agree that it is probably a hoax, I'm not absolutely sure" is um well short of the confidence we need to state a fact, let alone keep a whole article. The statement admitting guilt by the hoaxers, above, is pretty damning. It could itself be a hoax, but I doubt it. Finally, the Turks deleted their article in 2017. While that doesn't prove anything, it's not an endorsement for the article existing here if the Turks themselves don't want it. Herostratus (talk) 18:36, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I agree. I've added back the speedy deletion template. Finding a source from close to the article's inception, with information that was not present in the article, was enough to cast doubts for me. It seems that all of that came from the Turkish article, which was longer than the English one. I've since found an archived version of that here. Renerpho (talk) 18:43, 28 June 2025 (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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:30, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Eknath Pawar

AfDs for this article:

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

No evidence of enough coverage in independent RS per WP:GNG or WP:NAUTHOR & article contains unsourced claims and promotional tone. Chronos.Zx (talk) 16:42, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, Poetry, India, and Maharashtra. Chronos.Zx (talk) 16:42, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete promotional tone is a reason to rewrite not to delete so I disagree with that part, but it lacks any demonstrated significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources so should be deleted for lacking notability. 204.111.137.20 (talk) 17:45, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails GNG and ANYBIO. No significant coverage in secondary reliable sources. Zuck28 (talk) 19:37, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable subject and fails GNG. Iljhgtn (talk) 02:02, 3 July 2025 (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. ✗plicit 00:06, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Frida Ghitis

AfDs for this article:

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

Recently nominated for deletion by Scientelensia, who's rationale still holds true: "is of no relevance or notability, reads like a CV rather than a Wikipedia page." Currently only primary sources. My searches turned up the same thing as Oaktree's during the prior AfD: "I can only bring up articles or opinion pieces written by this person, nothing about them... I suppose if more book reviews are found, could have a chance at AUTHOR, but I couldn't find any." Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:09, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Women, and Journalism. Shellwood (talk) 11:28, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: why was this recreated? ―Howard • 🌽³³ 15:08, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The last AfD was closed as a "soft delete" which equates as a "prod", which was contested. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:12, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article is about a notable political commentator fitting the criteria of WP:CREATIVE. All of the sources are secondary, not primary, sources. Among other things, none of the references are written by the subject of the article. While work can be done to improve the article, deleting it is not the appropriate remedy for any concerns. Coining (talk) 01:58, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP I see plenty of secondary sources. HitchensT (talk) 17:59, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:08, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, Judaism, and Israel. Coining (talk) 18:09, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing the GNG. Maybe also salt. None of the references are secondary. None of the keep arguments hold water. If there are any sources, bring them on! (hard to track with journalists) gidonb (talk) 18:01, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is a CV masquerading as an article. SportingFlyer T·C 20:36, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Owen× ☎ 19:31, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MixSingh

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

Non-notable musician. Fails Wp:GNG and Wp:NMUSIC. No SIGCOV is available, just passing mentions and routine PR articles for the releases. There are two award nominations as well but both of them are non-notable and just nominations. Also, the article's creator was blocked as a sock and UPE. Zuck28 (talk) 20:20, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Artists, Authors, Bands and musicians, Music, India, and Punjab. Zuck28 (talk) 20:20, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This biography is far better-sourced than most of the other Articles for deletion, and I am opposed to a Western bias of deletion of non-Western topics. - Poof positive (talk) 04:26, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is an invalid argument. See Wp:WHATABOUT, WP:TDLI,and Wp:POV. Zuck28 (talk) 06:04, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notability is demonstrated under WP:MUSIC. Subject has produced and composed for widely recognized artists and songs (e.g., "Sakhiyaan", "Sorry", "Saara India") released under independent labels. His production work has received broad exposure and coverage, confirming his significance in the Punjabi music scene. Cinelatina (talk) 20:37, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
None of the points you mentioned makes him pass Wp:NMUSIC. Zuck28 (talk) 11:14, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 07:44, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 08:41, 12 July 2025 (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. ✗plicit 02:39, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dinu Andrei Popescu

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

Created by a single-purpose account, who's attempted to create this article since 2021. Article clearly lacks coverage from reliable sources, and some appear to be either self-published or from unreliable sites. Subject fails WP:NJOURNALIST. CycloneYoris ^talk! 01:09, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete per nom, in toto. Perhaps it's also time to propose that the account be banned if this is continued disruptive behavior, or, if it's new accounts, page protection to prevent this from being something that has to be rehashed every time someone decides to create the page. Foxtrot620 (talk) 01:38, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism and Romania. CycloneYoris ^talk! 01:09, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Poetry, Television, Psychology, and Internet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:59, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — utterly promotional nonsense. — Biruitorul ^Talk 06:44, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Surayeproject3 (talk) 18:11, 2 July 2025 (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. ✗plicit 14:30, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Liam Borchers

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

Not really clear to me how notable: sources include a few local news sites about his books, but the books themselves don't seem to be notable; orphan article and may have been created or edited in return for undisclosed payments, so page does not really contribute to the wiki in any meaningful way while possibly contravening its terms of use Toffeenix (talk) 05:12, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Toffeenix (talk) 05:12, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:53, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Football. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:54, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:15, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:19, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails in GNG. The person who took the photo of Liam also created the article, which isn't always a red flag, but in this case it is. RossEvans19 (talk) 01:59, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing the GNG. With a positive outlook just maybe TOOSOON. The books are self-published, the coverage human interest. The editing does not look paid at all. gidonb (talk) 05:03, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete some not insignificant COI concerns, but also more relevant, the subject is non-notable as of now. Iljhgtn (talk) 21:27, 29 June 2025 (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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:33, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bishnu Mohapatra

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

Doesn't appear to pass WP:NACADEMIC (university appears to be fairly minor?). I'm nominating in part because this article was created and largely written by a sockpuppeter, and I suspect WP:COI. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ThePerfectYellow grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 00:03, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Politics, Social science, and India. grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 00:03, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Poetry, and Odisha. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:24, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I could not find evidence of academic notability in the form of heavy citations to his work nor anything else. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:01, 28 June 2025 (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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:43, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sidharth Mishra

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

WP:NJOURNALIST and WP:NACADEMIC doesn't appear to pass either. Coverage in article is all passing. WP:COI suspected as well; see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ThePerfectYellow grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 00:24, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, Journalism, Politics, and India. grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 00:24, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete: Refs [2] and [9] appear to reviews of his book with a bylined editor (who appears to be a senior-resident editor of The Pioneer). Given subject's stint at the same place, not sure how "independent" that would be. Bulk of the notability is driven by opinions/commentaries etc in multiple venues — I am not sure how that is generally used for Journalists on Wikipedia re: notability. I am leaning weak delete but if something else surfaces, I am happy to revisit. WeWake (talk) 19:59, 26 June 2025 (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. On balance of P&G weight, I see a rough consensus to delete. Owen× ☎ 13:52, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Prashant Madanmohan Leander

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

Vanity page, created by a single-purpose account who recreated this page several times in draft space. See: Draft:Prashant Madanmohan and Draft:Xternal, which indicates that author is either a paid editor or likely has a conflict of interest. A WP:BEFORE search doesn't show sufficient coverage from reliable sources, and there's little indication that subject warrants a standalone article. CycloneYoris ^talk! 07:33, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Medicine, India, and Armenia. CycloneYoris ^talk! 07:33, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:45, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep Thehugolion (talk) 13:43, 23 June 2025 (UTC)~~[reply]

Keep Thehugolion (talk) 13:44, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Extended content

Keep Thehugolion (talk) 13:44, 23 June 2025 (UTC) Oppose deletion — Subject meets notability criteria under WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO, and WP:CREATIVE[reply]

1. Significant coverage in reliable, independent sources (GNG): Contrary to the nomination, the article cites multiple reliable, third-party sources with non-trivial coverage:

The Times of India – coverage of Armenian cultural exhibitions involving the subject ([link](https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/chennai/armenian-artists-works-to-be-exhibited-in-chennai/articleshow/109538640.cms))
ThePrint and Business Standard – covered the Indo-Armenian-French cultural confluence and his literary work ([example](https://www.business-standard.com/content/press-releases-ani/cognishift-org-excellence-awards-the-god-of-deserted-memories-book-art-exhibition-lalit-kala-akademi-ministry-of-culture-india-chennai-2025-125052100563_1.html))
Forward Pathway – highlighted his cross-cultural literary philosophy in a featured article.
ANI News, France Network Times, and Armenian government-linked sources also provide independent coverage of events he organized.

These sources reflect broad, non-trivial coverage across national and international outlets, satisfying WP:GNG.

2. Meets WP:ANYBIO: Recognized honors The subject was awarded notable distinctions:

"Arvestaget" title from the Republic of Armenia for cultural contributions (with photo and embassy references).
Guest speaker at the Armenian Genocide commemoration in New Delhi (2024), a high-profile diplomatic event.
Reminiscier Fellowship 2025 by Global Cultural Council.

These are significant, non-self-bestowed recognitions that meet the threshold for WP:ANYBIO.

3. Creative and scholarly output (WP:CREATIVE, WP:AUTHOR): Dr. Leander has authored:

The God of Deserted Memories – launched at a 7-day literary exhibition with diplomatic support.
The Monk With A Stethoscope – a widely distributed philosophical memoir.
Books on Armenian heritage supported by cultural centers and embassies.
A biography of impressionist artist Lems Nersisyan.

This meets WP:CREATIVE and WP:AUTHOR based on quality, distribution, and recognition.

4. Additional contributions and presence:

Founder of Cognishift.org and the Indo-Armenian-French Art & Literary Confluence (attended by 500+ people and supported by Lalit Kala Akademi, Ministry of Culture).
Citations and publications on ResearchGate and Google Scholar.
Referenced by both Indian and Armenian official and diplomatic entities.

5. Draft history and intent: Yes, the article had earlier drafts. However, the current article reflects significant effort to meet notability, with references from high-quality sources and no promotional tone. Previous draft iterations should not be held against a now-verified and well-sourced article.

Conclusion: This subject clearly meets Wikipedia notability criteria for authors, cultural figures, and honorees. The article can be improved, but deletion is unwarranted.

Recommendation: Keep and improve.

LLM cruft collapsed, ducplicate !votes struck. Geschichte (talk) 14:12, 23 June 2025 (UTC) [reply]

Extended content

Additional point — Mainstream Indian media coverage strengthens WP:GNG

The subject has been covered by Indulge Express, the arts and culture vertical of The New Indian Express, a major national newspaper in India. This feature article highlights his Indo-French-Armenian literary work and his cultural event at Lalit Kala Akademi:

Indulge Express article – May 10, 2025

This is a **significant source** from **mainstream Indian media** and is both **independent** and **non-trivial**, thereby satisfying the core requirements of WP:GNG. It reinforces the fact that the subject’s work has attracted attention in recognized national publications with editorial oversight.

This is in addition to other sources like The Times of India, ThePrint, and Business Standard, confirming that the article meets general notability criteria through multiple independent, reputable media sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thehugolion (talk • contribs) 14:22, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Additional point — Recognized by Armenian Ministry of Culture and conferred the "Arvestaget" title

In 2024, the subject was formally recognized by Armenian cultural institutions and awarded the honorary title of "Arvestaget" by the Republic of Armenia for his contributions to the preservation and promotion of Armenian culture, literature, and memory.

This recognition was:

Conferred with the support of the Armenian Ministry of Culture
Publicly documented with photographs and permanent links (see references in article)
Issued in conjunction with his cross-cultural literary work and diplomatic events organized in Armenia and India

This satisfies WP:ANYBIO which includes individuals who have received significant national or international honors from recognized cultural or governmental bodies. It also strengthens his profile as a notable figure in Indo-Armenian literary diplomacy and heritage work.

Such recognition from a national ministry of culture is notable, rare, and equivalent in value to inclusion in state-level halls of fame or cultural orders often cited in other AfD keep arguments. Thehugolion — Preceding undated comment added 14:36, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Additional Notability Basis — National Honors and Cross-Cultural Recognition from Armenia’s Ministry of Culture

The subject was conferred the honorary title of “Arvestaget” by the **Republic of Armenia** in 2024 for his cultural, literary, and philosophical contributions to Armenian heritage and Indo-Armenian relations. The title was formally conferred with the **backing of the Armenian Ministry of Culture and the Avetik Isahakyan Central Cultural Center**, a national-level institution. This distinction is documented through official references and photographs cited in the article.

Such **official cultural recognition from a national government** directly satisfies WP:ANYBIO under WP:NBOOK criteria under: _"The person has received a well-known and significant honor at a national or international level."_ WP:AUTHOR criteria 2 and 4 , book being part of exhibition in India's premier Government National Academy of Art - Lalit Kala Akademi with International attendence- Armenia and France. This parallels arguments used successfully in other biographies (e.g., state-wide halls of fame, high-profile fellowships), and carries special weight given the cross-cultural nature of the award involving three nations (India–Armenia–France).

The recognition was linked to the subject's books and artistic collaborations that have been independently covered in national and international press (Republic of Armenia government centre Avetik Isahakyan Centre,Indian Embassy website, Times of India, ThePrint, Business Standard, Indulge Express).

Combined with national press coverage and scholarly output, this title substantiates a strong claim for notability. Keep --Thehugolion (talk) 15:19, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The article was a mess so I tried to clean it up so future reviewers have a more neutral base opinion. That said I found absolutely zero independent sources that we can use for this BLP bio. The above LLM nonsense doesn't give me a good feeling either. I will note that apparently he also goes by "Madan<space>Mohan" sometimes, to provide more searching surface area.

Add: Also the best sources used in this article don't mention the doctor so thats not useful. And I couldn't find good reviews of his books. Moritoriko (talk) 06:43, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The article is about an author , doctor and cultural curator whose work has been adopted and shown as an exhibition by an artist in the National academy of art in India.This has garnered attention of French, Indian and Armenian diplomats and covered by national newspaper- The Indian Exrpress -Indulge. As per author criteria, this sets the stage for notability. Besides the state title and honor, significant cultural dissemination and works toward uniting cultures, it is a deserving biography for Wikipedia. Indulge Express , is the cultural review section of The New Indian Express, ( Independent third party National News with by line) the article discusses the depth of his work in elaborate detail , it also shows how the book has been adopted as an exhibition.This satisfies the Author notability criteria. The news source is independent national news and cultural review source, satisfying review and news coverage both. --Artakbig (talk) 10:11, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Looking for an opinion from another experienced, human participant.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 13:38, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Sources are pure garbage, and at least a few of which didn't even mention his name at all. If this person is notable, sources do not explain why, and this article would have to be completely rewritten from the ground up. Grayfell (talk) 06:01, 7 July 2025 (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. ✗plicit 03:22, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Astrid Gynnild

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

This is just an awfully self-referential article, created by a WP:SPA, lacking any independent sources, and reading like a resume. BD2412 T 01:33, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Norway. BD2412 T 01:33, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non notable. The only sources I can find for this individual are from a university associated with the individual. Nixleovel (talk) 06:42, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Women. Shellwood (talk) 09:14, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well I wonder. Gynnild seems to be pretty well-published for an academic and I'd have thought easily meets the WP:NACADEMIC criteria for notability. The article is a right mess and has been edited by two SPAs but if it's notable it needs tidying not deletion. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:27, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am seeing some articles published and some work leading that one journal, but I am not finding any biographical information, independent or not, that we can cite the information in this WP:BLP to. There is this which is thin on details. I am on the fence right now. Moritoriko (talk) 06:44, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:41, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an essentially unreferenced BLP, too old to draftify. The external link to her faculty profile sources only her present position, and I suppose if we had evidence of WP:PROF notability we could use it to source a one-line sub-stub about her, but although she has some well-cited works there are not enough to make me willing to advocate for that outcome. The other path to notability would be through WP:AUTHOR and through published reviews of her books, which if they existed should also be usable to replace the unsourced biographical material with content about those books. But all I found was a review of one edited volume (doi:10.18261/ISSN.0805-9535-2018-04-07), not enough for notability that way. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:23, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well you may be right. I found a review of another edited volume so we haven't exhausted the sources of notability here. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:46, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.38.224.201 (talk) 13:15, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Would probably pass academic notability, appears to have edited/contributed to two textbooks under Routledge. [12] and [13] Oaktree b (talk) 15:24, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Co-editing books with many contributors is not a major accomplishment in an academic's career. And even if Gynnild were the sole author of both books, "these books exist" is not really an argument for noteworthiness, either. At a bare minimum, books have to be reviewed in order to stand out. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 16:47, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I assumed that met criteria 4 for academics. Oaktree b (talk) 22:48, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merely having published books, of which there are thousands every year, isn't by itself an indicator of having "made a significant impact in the area of higher education". Are those books the standard texts for courses taught at many schools? Are they known by their authors' names, the way that every physics graduate student knows that Jackson is Classical Electrodynamics? I don't see any indication that Gynnild's co-edited volumes are remotely near that status. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 00:58, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Further research and the conversation on this page has led me to conclude that there currently are not enough sources to support an article on this topic at this time. Moritoriko (talk) 02:57, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. I see no support for deletion. And while there is support for a redirect as an alternative to deletion, it cannot be carried out as an alternative to retention without consensus to do so, which I don't see here. Owen× ☎ 20:54, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Giovanni Baldelli

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

Having gone through the available source material, I have been unable to find anything to establish significant coverage of this person in reliable sources. His main work of note was a single book about social anarchism, which has received some attention but not much more than a passing reference in most sources (see Google Scholar results). David Wieck's obituary for the Social Anarchism journal, listed in the further reading, appears to be the only work specifically about Baldelli that could lead to any development of this article. As this article appears not to meet the notability guidelines for authors, I'm recommending it for deletion. A possible alternative to deletion could be redirecting to social anarchism, although he's not mentioned in the body of that article, so this may not be appropriate. Grnrchst (talk) 21:48, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, Philosophy, Politics, Social science, and Italy. Grnrchst (talk) 21:48, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There's an extensive biography in the Dizionario biografico online degli anarchici italiani (which was originally a print publication and is now updated and expanded online)[14]. Between that and the Wieck obituary, I'd be fine with "Keep" if only there was a third published source. The Dizionario points to an undergraduate thesis, but it's unpublished. Jahaza (talk) 04:39, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You'd hope with an extensive list of publications for WP:AUTHOR notability, but I only found one review so far.[15] It would be good if someone has access to Italian library sources to search those. Jahaza (talk) 04:41, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~~Ah, REDIRECT to David Wieck, where Baldelli and his main book are mentioned. If more sources emerge the article can be broken out again. 04:44, 20 June 2025 (UTC)~~

Striking my !vote. Jahaza (talk) 00:52, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, extensively cited in various works on anarchism. --Soman (talk) 11:03, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Wieck page. Go4thProsper (talk) 10:41, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, just because there is little information now doesn't mean that there won't be more information in the future. FPTI (talk) 00:54, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as opinions are divided between Keep and Redirection.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:03, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz, I've struck my !vote, about which I didn't have strong feelings. ~~I don't know if you want to WP:IAR and close this up early as a result. Jahaza (talk) 00:54, 27 June 2025 (UTC)~~[reply]

aaaand now I'm striking my comment about closing early because I see that I wasn't the only one to !vote "redirect" Jahaza (talk) 00:56, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

~~Redirect~~ simply as an alternative to deletion. The keep comments above have not established which sources as a group meet the GNG. If all we have is the one encyclopedia source and passing mentions in books (which is all I've found), then that isn't enough on which to base a standalone article. It would require a much deeper scavenge of period Italian-language sources to find reviews for his other works, as his 1972 Social Anarchism was not apparently reviewed in English-language periodicals or indexed in Book Review Digest. czar 15:47, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 06:58, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are many hits on G-Books that speak of his Social Anarchism. I am leaning Keep but need to confirm that the sources are sufficient. Give me a day or two? Thanks. Lamona (talk) 17:01, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Please look at the article now. I used two detailed biographical works (Dizionario ... anarchici italiani - thanks for that link!) and an author biography in Gale Literature: Contemporary Authors. I also found a short blurb on the 2010 reprint. I have not yet delved into the Wieck obit. Because his area of activity was, if not actually illegal, at least frowned upon, we are unlikely to find book reviews in mainstream publications. I'm looking for archives with underground anarchist serials from his time, but I'm not entirely hopeful. I also think we can remove "Stub". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lamona (talk • contribs) 02:57, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Contemporary Authors is but a short paragraph. It's enough for some background to round out a stub and enough that Gale considers him a noteworthy author but doesn't give us much on his actual literary career. I would expect to find more commentary on his works, regardless of their subject (plenty of anarchist theorists and writers had their works remarked upon). Reference and Research Book News is a library trade publication so the listing for Baldelli's book without commentary does not confer any notability in itself. But being mentioned in the other two reference works, however brief, can fashion at least a brief, sourced listing. So even without a third source, keeping the article has at least a little justification, albeit weak. czar 11:42, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  Here is another lengthy article Znetwork. The publication is not on the WP:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources so I assume it is ok. Lamona (talk) 17:30, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  ZNetwork describes itself as a "radical left media outlet" and is more an activist publication than a reliable source. Its submissions and editorial policy make no mention of fact checking for accuracy and it's unclear whether contributors are paid. Not all publications are listed on RSP—that would be a long list—but still need to look for hallmarks of what would make it reliable. We could discuss it as a self-published expert source for inclusion in the article since it's written by an academic but I don't think we'd count that for purposes of notability based on Z's reliability as an editor of said content. czar 10:49, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  All publications are activist publications - it's just that many don't admit it. Znetwork has a editorial policy and each issue is a curated selection of works. It's not a news source, so their editorial work does not involve fact-checking. It isn't "self published" because you can't "self publish" on their site. The author, Girdner, is an academic with numerous publications. I don't think that whether or not authors are paid factors in reliability - as we know, for many peer-reviewed academic publications the authors themselves have to pay for their article to be included. Lamona (talk) 15:26, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY with thanks to Lamona. The sources are marginal, but sufficient. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:19, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. I do not see consensus to keep or delete. The quantity and quality of coverage appears to be in a gray area, such that good-faith editors disagree as to whether it is sufficient. I am treating the BLP1E argument as generally weak, as we clearly have multiple instances of coverage, and a few "delete" !votes are bare assertions with no evidence. However, the argument that SIGCOV does not exist is stronger, and sufficient in my view to balance the numerically fewer "keep" !votes. We've been at this three weeks, no consensus has emerged, and given the walls of text and blocked nominator I suspect many editors have been scared away from opining. As such I am closing with no prejudice against speedy renomination, but I would suggest letting coverage (or lack thereof) become clearer over the next few weeks to months. Vanamonde93 (talk) 22:26, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lilly Contino

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

Doesn’t meet WP:GNG or WP:BIO. Coverage is tied to a two incidents, not enough for lasting notability—see WP:BLP1E. Sources are mostly local news or advocacy stuff, not deep or independent enough per WP:RS. Her gaming and social media gigs don’t get serious attention in solid outlets. Delete or redirect. Momentoftrue (talk) 22:19, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Biography-related deletion discussions.

Comment not that I'm moved one way or the other yet, but surely Coverage is tied to a couple incidents (emphasis added; nom changed 'couple' to 'two' after I posted this comment) and WP:BLP1E are contradictory, no? (see WP:BLP2E) Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 22:24, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Subject is not notable. 37.96.108.74 (talk) 09:39, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Alot of the transphobia against Lily comes from her actions at Disneyland, and complaining to managers about servers doing what they were trained to do. This isnt supporting the transphobia, but alot of the bludgeoning say the same thing -that Lily is not notable whatsoever only notable because of her actions. 2606:9400:98A0:92A0:8CDD:2D1C:CAC2:3DE7 (talk) 17:48, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLUDGEONing. —Fortuna, imperatrix 12:35, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Respectfully — no. That’s exactly the point. WP:BLP1E and WP:BLP2E exist to prevent Wikipedia from becoming a permanent record for individuals only known due to a small number of controversies or viral moments. The subject of this article is not independently notable — the “coverage” amounts to reactionary media commentary about the incidents, not about her as a person in any substantive or sustained way.

We’re not talking about someone with a career, long-term recognition, or encyclopedic significance. We’re talking about fleeting media attention tied to drama. “A couple incidents” is literally the textbook definition of BLP1E, and trying to twist that into a justification for notability is a dangerous precedent.

Wikipedia is not a tabloid. It’s not a diary of internet virality. And it sure as hell isn’t here to eternally memorialize people for 15 minutes of controversial fame. If the coverage dies with the event, so should the article. Per policy, this should be deleted.

— End of story. Momentoftrue (talk) 17:17, 17 June 2025 (UTC)#[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 June 16. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:42, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Coverage in 2022, 2023 and this in 2025 [16]. Some analysis here [17], so another coverage found in 2025. Not so notable for the various "issues", but being a streamer, of which we have ample confirmation. Oaktree b (talk) 23:21, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note that the Toronto Sun story was field under "weird". And the study is hardly about her but using it as a speech analysis example. IgelRM (talk) 15:00, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The San Francisco Chronicle article is about an incident, but it's a RS and confirms the viral video [18]. We at least have confirmation of what the person does. Oaktree b (talk) 21:13, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Toronto Sun article cited (“NO LONGER FEEL SAFE”) is another incident-focused tabloid-style piece. It doesn’t provide in-depth or sustained coverage of Contino’s career. The academic analysis cited (a speech acts paper) is not journalistic coverage and is hosted on ResearchGate, which is user-contributed and generally not considered a reliable secondary source for establishing notability.

There is no significant, independent, and reliable secondary source coverage that discusses the subject in detail beyond viral moments. Lacks the depth required to pass WP:GNG or WP:BIO. Delete. Momentoftrue (talk) 23:32, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:SIGCOV. The rule has a number as its middle name: BLP1E, not BLP2E nor BLP3E. Life is now a series of viral moments, and it might have been always this way. We have never deleted an article, as far as I can recall in the tens of thousands that I've participated in, where a person who was known for two separate events to be deleted, with the exception of political candidates being held to a higher standard, to screen out all but perennial candidates. The consensus might be faulty but hasn't changed yet. Bearian (talk) 01:17, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Bearian: I think this recent AFD on a Moroccan streamer probably had two events and was deleted. IgelRM (talk) 15:03, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLUDGEONing. —Fortuna, imperatrix 12:35, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

With respect, that interpretation stretches WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG beyond their intent. This isn’t about counting events — the core issue is quality and depth of coverage, not just quantity.

The Toronto Sun piece is incident-driven, reactive, and tabloid-style — it doesn’t offer any sustained analysis of Contino as a public figure. The ResearchGate article is academic, not independent journalistic coverage, and is hosted on a user-upload platform, not a recognized mainstream publisher. Neither source meets the standard for significant, independent, and reliable secondary coverage as required by WP:GNG and WP:BIO.

While “life is now a series of viral moments,” Wikipedia’s inclusion standards haven’t changed: viral ≠ notable. Two viral events with no in-depth profile or sustained coverage don’t override WP:BLP1E — which still applies where coverage is narrowly event-focused and fails to establish enduring notability.

We’re not here to build permanent encyclopedic entries from fleeting internet controversies. If a subject’s only enduring relevance is through misgendering incidents that go viral, that’s precisely the kind of situation WP:BLP1E warns against.

Additionally, viral incidents—even when notable events—do not automatically justify an independent article. Often, these topics are better suited to be covered within broader articles or merged elsewhere, to avoid creating pages based primarily on fleeting internet attention.

Redirect or delete. Momentoftrue (talk) 01:32, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The subject fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. After reviewing all sources, there is no significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. Most references are either incident-only (triggering WP:BLP1E), promotional, or do not meet reliability standards. Here's a breakdown:

WeWork.com – Corporate blog; not independent, not reliable, no significant coverage.
PocketGamer.biz – Interview published while subject worked at Ryu Games; borderline source, promotional tone, fails independence.
GameDeveloper.com – Author profile, not coverage about the subject. Not independent or significant.
48 Hills – Local alternative outlet; mildly reliable but not in-depth or sustained coverage. Does not establish notability.
CBS News, The Hill, Advocate, KRON4, Daily Dot, LGBTQ Nation – All focus on one of two viral incidents (either the Cheesecake Factory confrontation or the Crown & Crumpet livestream hoax). These are WP:BLP1E events and do not provide broader notability or career-spanning coverage.

In short, there is no meaningful coverage establishing lasting notability beyond two viral moments. Subject does not meet inclusion criteria under notability guidelines. Momentoftrue (talk) 02:00, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This article was created by User:Willthacheerleader18, who has created a number of similar articles on internet personalities. A current example is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Katelyn MacDonald, which is also under AfD discussion due to concerns related to WP:BLP1E and WP:GNG. The pattern of creating biographies based on recent or viral incidents — rather than long-term, significant coverage in reliable sources — raises questions about whether these articles meet inclusion standards. This does not reflect on the subjects themselves, but highlights the need to apply Wikipedia’s notability criteria consistently. Momentoftrue (talk) 02:38, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- - Yes, I created the article (and was surprised to find I was not given notice about it's nomination for deletion.. so thank you for mentioning me here!). I have written a number of articles on TikTokers, as a member of the WikiProject TikTok. I created MacDonald's article this year, and Contino's article last year, while participating in LGBTQ+ edit-a-thons created by WikiProject Women in Red. I do not have a strong opinion either way whether or not this article is deleted. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 19:47, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  Response: Thank you for clarifying your role and intentions. However, Wikipedia’s inclusion standards must be applied impartially, regardless of how an article was created or the good-faith motivations behind edit-a-thons. Here are the critical points:
  1. 1. Intentions Don’t Override Notability Policy
  Participation in WikiProject TikTok or Women in Red and enthusiasm for representation are commendable, but they cannot bypass WP:GNG or WP:NPERSON. An article’s merit rests entirely on whether independent, reliable sources provide substantial, in-depth coverage of the subject beyond fleeting viral moments.
  1. 2. Coverage Remains Event-Driven and Shallow
  As previously noted, nearly all reliable coverage of Lilly Contino is tied to two similar viral incidents (Cheesecake Factory misgendering, Crown & Crumpet prank). These produce short news briefs or opinion-style blog posts, not long-form journalistic profiles or analytical features that treat Contino as a figure of lasting significance. This pattern fails the “substantial coverage” threshold required by WP:NPERSON and WP:SIGCOV.
  1. 3. BLP1E Applies Squarely
  WP:BLP1E exists to prevent standalone biographies based solely on a small number of events. Even if multiple events occurred, they are of the same nature—viral controversies without broader context or ongoing achievements. Creating multiple similar articles in edit-a-thons magnifies this issue rather than resolving it. The policy warns precisely against this: a subject known only for episodic viral attention does not warrant a permanent entry.
  1. 4. Independence and Reliability of Sources
  Many sources are local or advocacy-leaning, or retell the same incidents across outlets. There is no evidence of independent, investigative coverage of Contino’s career (e.g., video game writing, lasting impact as a critic). Academic papers on speech acts do not count as independent journalistic coverage establishing notability. Promotional interviews and author profiles likewise fail to establish notability under WP:RS.
  1. 5. Precedent and Consistency
  Allowing this article to remain simply because it was created via an edit-a-thon sets a dangerous precedent: any viral figure with minimal coverage could be added en masse during events, swelling Wikipedia with entries lacking true encyclopedic value. Consistency demands that we apply notability criteria uniformly, regardless of how articles originate.
  1. 6. Neutrality and Good Faith
  This response is not an attack on contributors or on efforts to improve representation. It is a strict application of policy: if the topic doesn’t meet the standards, the article should be deleted or redirected. Good faith editing still requires adherence to notability and reliable sourcing.
  Conclusion: Despite the effort and intentions behind its creation, the Lilly Contino article does not satisfy Wikipedia’s notability requirements. The sources reflect fleeting viral incidents rather than sustained, in-depth coverage of lasting impact. Therefore, the article must be deleted (or at most redirected into a broader topic). Momentoftrue (talk) 15:52, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This was entirely unnecessary to type out as I am not arguing for keeping the article. I did not claim that intentions override policy, nor did I suggest any argument against any claims you've made. I created the articles because I believed them to pass WP:GNG. If you feel that is not the case, totally fine by me. As I stated, I am not voting on this. Please save your lecture for someone else. And next time please remember that You should notify the article's creator or other significant contributors by adding a tag or other appropriate text to contributor talk pages. -- Willthacheerleader18

Understood — and to be clear, my reply wasn’t about your vote (or lack thereof), but about clarifying the notability issues tied to article creation patterns that keep recurring at AfD, especially when they lean on borderline WP:GNG interpretations for recent viral figures.

As for the notification, fair point — I’ve since followed up accordingly. But let’s not pretend context doesn’t matter here. When an article’s inclusion is based on passing GNG through incident-driven press, it’s absolutely relevant to examine how those assumptions play out across similar cases.

This isn’t personal — it’s procedural. If the article doesn’t hold up to scrutiny, then discussing the basis for its creation is part of the AfD process, whether someone casts a !vote or not. Momentoftrue (talk) 19:54, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is a nomination discussion for one article, not a discussion about patterns with AfD nominations and rationales. Furthermore, that point could/should have been made in your original nomination, not by berating the article creator who, other than acknowledging that this nomination exists, was not taking part in the nomination discussion. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 20:03, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If pointing out policy violations and systemic patterns that are clearly influencing article creation is “berating,” then maybe the issue isn’t the tone — it’s that the critique hit a nerve.

Let’s be real: this article wasn’t created organically based on strong SIGCOV. It was drafted in the middle of an edit-a-thon with a political advocacy goal in mind — your own words confirm this. That’s not just relevant context; it’s a red flag under WP:NOTADVOCACY and WP:POVFORK. When coverage is shallow, event-driven, and duplicated across multiple bios, and those bios are systematically produced during representation-focused drives, then yes — it's absolutely fair to raise this *within* an AfD.

This *is* about one article, but it’s also about how it came to exist — and that’s entirely valid to scrutinize. If the same sourcing pattern (brief viral news, no depth, no sustained independent attention) keeps surfacing, and if those articles are being batch-produced in advocacy-driven sprints, then AfD isn’t the wrong place to raise that. It’s *the exact right place*. Pretending otherwise is a convenient way to deflect from policy, not defend it.

No one’s questioning your good faith or motivations. But let’s stop pretending good intentions immunize content from policy scrutiny. Wikipedia has inclusion standards for a reason, and editorial accountability doesn’t get suspended because the subject is part of a social justice campaign.

You’re welcome to disengage from the discussion, but you don’t get to dictate what parts of the sourcing and editorial history are “appropriate” to analyze. This isn’t a personal attack. It’s a necessary look at a growing pattern that’s diluting the encyclopedia with biographies that do not meet WP:GNG, WP:SIGCOV, or WP:BLP1E. Momentoftrue (talk) 20:11, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you read through Wikipedia:Civility before you continuing engaging with other editors. "political advocacy goal in mind — your own words confirm this", Oh really? Which words of mine confirm that I created this article with a "political advocacy goal" in mind? What "social justice campaign" am I supposedly a part of? Are you claiming that writing about queer people, or women in general, ,must always be from a mindset of political advocacy? Is writing about men then? People of color? You've been notified various times in this discussion by other editors and now I shall remind you again, don't bludgeon the process. And don't make accusations against other editors. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 20:14, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Let’s clear something up right now — no one said that writing about queer people, women, or any marginalized group is inherently political. That’s a mischaracterization, and frankly, a deflection.

What was said — and what I stand by — is that creating multiple articles during themed edit-a-thons focused on identity, without ensuring those subjects meet core notability criteria, creates an appearance (key word: appearance) of prioritizing representation over encyclopedic standards. That’s not an accusation — that’s pattern recognition based on edit history and stated affiliations. If that observation makes you uncomfortable, maybe the focus should be on ensuring the articles can withstand scrutiny, not on painting valid criticism as “uncivil.”

As for “bludgeoning,” let’s stop misusing that word. This is a content discussion, not a vibe check. If several keep !votes repeat the same flawed reasoning — such as mistaking fleeting, incident-driven media coverage for lasting notability — then yes, those points get addressed. That’s not bludgeoning. That’s defending the integrity of Wikipedia’s standards. You don’t get to cry “bludgeon” every time someone challenges your rationale with actual policy.

And if you truly believe raising concerns about how and why biographies are being added — especially when notability is marginal — counts as a personal attack, then you may need to re-read WP:NOTCENSORED, WP:DISPUTE, and WP:OWN. Momentoftrue (talk) 20:26, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You claimed I am using Wikipedia for advocacy when I have not. You claimed that I was politically motivated, which I am not. You are calling into question my integrity as an editor, which is not what is in question here in this nomination discussion. I am not deflecting, I am reminding you to behave properly in a deletion discussion, which you have completely disregarded. Need I remind you that Wikipedia is not a battleground nor is it about winning. Behave accordingly. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 20:30, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You keep invoking civility and decorum, yet you’re mischaracterizing legitimate scrutiny of editing patterns and policy compliance as a personal attack — that’s not how AfD works. This is not about your personal integrity, and if you perceive it that way, that’s a problem of framing — not of conduct.

Let’s be precise: I raised concerns tied to article creation patterns during themed edit-a-thons that repeatedly intersect with borderline notability. That’s not a reflection on you as a person; it’s a reflection on editorial outcomes. If pointing out that trend feels accusatory, perhaps it’s because it surfaces a discomfort with what the policies actually require — WP:GNG, WP:BLP1E, WP:NOTNEWS, WP:NPERSON — and how they’re being tested here.

Wikipedia isn’t a battleground — but it’s also not a sanctuary for unexamined assumptions. Discussions like these are exactly where hard policy distinctions must be made. Not based on who created the article, but on whether its inclusion dilutes the encyclopedic value we’re all here to preserve.

So let’s not pretend civility is violated when someone demands rigor. No one accused you of “being politically motivated” — I described how repeated contributions centered on identity topics during advocacy-themed edit events can resemble a political project if not checked against policy. That’s a structural critique, not a personal one. If you believe there’s no tension between that pattern and notability, you’re free to argue that — on policy grounds, not moral outrage.

This isn’t about winning. It’s about whether we, as editors, are willing to say that good faith alone doesn’t entitle an article to survive if the subject lacks durable, independent coverage. If that’s uncomfortable, it’s not incivility. It’s the encyclopedia doing what it’s meant to do. Momentoftrue (talk) 20:36, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Let’s clear something up right now- you are not behaving civilly. You have made your point a hundred times. Frankly, I'm tired of this spam. Good day. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 20:42, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If calling policy-based critique “spam” is the only way you can disengage from legitimate scrutiny, that says more about the strength of your position than mine. Repeating a point isn’t uncivil — especially when the point remains unaddressed. What is uncivil is trying to shut down a contributor by declaring exhaustion instead of responding with policy.

Let’s be clear: Wikipedia is not governed by vibes or by who gets tired first. It’s governed by content policies — WP:GNG, WP:NPERSON, WP:NOTNEWS, WP:BLP1E — and those remain at the center of this discussion. If you’re “tired” of seeing them cited, perhaps it’s because they’re inconvenient to the outcome you’re hoping for.

Calling this “spam” is rhetorical deflection. This isn’t Reddit. This is a deletion discussion. The process demands rigor — not emotional fatigue, not personal offense, and certainly not a premature exit masked as moral high ground.

You said “good day.” Wikipedia says “see it through.” Momentoftrue (talk) 20:46, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Critique is not spam. Berating every person who offers a different opinion regarding policy or validity of an article (which I did not, mind you) with paragraphs of text reiterating the same information over and over again is, in fact, spam. I never claimed that "Wikipedia is not governed by vibes or by who gets tired first", so why you feel the need to berate me about such matters is beyond me. I am very tired of engaging with you, regardless. What "outcome" am I "hoping for"? I clearly stated multiple times that I have no strong feelings about this discussion. I am fine with the article being kept or deleted. Good grief. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 20:48, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No — what you call “spam” is persistence. What you call “berating” is the repetition of unrefuted facts. What you call “paragraphs” is called argumentation, and it’s the backbone of AfD — not a nuisance to be hand-waved when inconvenient.

You’ve now pivoted from misrepresenting my position to mischaracterizing the very function of this process. Let’s break it down:

“Berating every person who offers a different opinion…”

Except you haven’t offered a different opinion. You explicitly said you’re not voting to keep the article. So what you’re objecting to isn’t disagreement — it’s discomfort with scrutiny. You object not because the arguments are wrong, but because they’re relentless. That’s not “spam.” That’s called consistency — and it’s what happens when policy is applied without bending to personal sentiment.

“Reiterating the same information over and over again…”

Yes. Because the same violations are recurring — and they remain unaddressed. Policy doesn’t change because someone grows weary of hearing it. If repetition makes you uncomfortable, then perhaps consider how often editors have had to cite WP:BLP1E, WP:GNG, and WP:NOTNEWS just to hold the line.

“Critique is not spam…”

Then you should know: policy-backed critique that challenges systemic patterns is the most vital form of critique Wikipedia has. It’s not noise — it’s friction. It’s how we stop this encyclopedia from becoming a reaction blog fueled by viral moments and advocacy-driven creation. This isn’t about you. It’s not about me. It’s about the integrity of the project.

You say “good day.” I say: this is AfD — not a coffee shop. If you don’t like long responses, you’re in the wrong venue. Because Wikipedia, unlike social media, doesn’t reward brevity over substance. And if the truth is long, it will be typed — again and again — until it’s finally read. Momentoftrue (talk) 20:49, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Enough. This argument has gone far past the topic of whether to keep or delete Lilly Contino and the entire debate is flooded with walls of text reiterating the same points over and over. The conversation is being bludgeoned to death at this point. Cool off and keep future conversation here civil and concise Taffer 😊💬_(she/they) 20:52, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No.

Enough is when policy has been upheld, not when discomfort reaches a boiling point.

Let’s be perfectly clear: this isn’t “bludgeoning.” This is holding the line when attempts at dilution, derailment, and passive-aggressive tone-shaming try to drown out legitimate critique with cries of exhaustion. If the conversation feels “flooded,” it’s because the policies being ignored are ocean-deep — and defending this project from erosion demands we swim in it.

You say this has gone “far past” the topic. I disagree. It is precisely on topic when the creation of an article represents not an isolated lapse, but part of a broader pattern: one that sidesteps WP:SIGCOV, WP:GNG, and WP:BLP1E through emotional appeal, surface-level coverage, and the insulation of assumed good intent. That pattern must be interrogated.

Let’s not pretend that length is the enemy here — vagueness is.

Let’s not pretend that repetition is the crime — silence in the face of failed sourcing is.

Conciseness is not a virtue when it’s used to truncate scrutiny.

Civility is not a shield when it’s deployed selectively to protect comfort over policy.

You may call it “bludgeoning” — but I call it the inevitable result of an unwillingness to engage the actual argument.

If a point has to be repeated, it’s because it keeps getting deflected, minimized, or ignored.

So no — I won’t “cool off.” I wasn’t heated. I was focused.

And I will remain focused until every last ounce of this article — and others built on similar quicksand — is measured not by emotion or exhaustion, but by notability, sourcing, and the rules that make Wikipedia what it is.

The temperature of the conversation doesn’t matter.

The strength of the argument does. Momentoftrue (talk) 20:58, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Critique isn’t spam — you’re right. But when critique is met with defensiveness masquerading as detachment, don’t expect silence in return. You entered this discussion. You participated. Now you want to cry exhaustion when confronted with a full, unblinking analysis of your contributions? That’s not “being tired.” That’s dodging.

You say you haven’t argued for the article.

You say you don’t care what happens.

You say you’re “tired.”

But here you are — again — investing more energy into tone-policing responses than addressing a single actual policy cited.

“Berating every person who offers a different opinion…”

Except you haven’t offered a policy-based “opinion” at all. You’ve offered affect — exhaustion, disengagement, performative neutrality — and expected that to insulate you from pushback. It doesn’t.

“With paragraphs of text…”

That’s called argumentation. If you wanted Twitter threads and emoji reactions, you’re on the wrong site. Wikipedia’s foundation is deliberate, sourced, structured reasoning. The fact that the arguments are long doesn’t make them spam — it makes them thorough. And maybe that’s the problem: this process doesn’t bend to who gets “tired” first.

You’ve now made this about your personal feelings of fatigue, when the core issue is one you still refuse to address: a repeated pattern of creating articles about individuals based solely on viral incidents, with no sustained, significant coverage. That’s not just a content problem — it’s a systemic notability failure.

“What outcome am I hoping for?”

Let’s stop playing coy. The pattern is clear. A string of articles created through the same methodology, relying on borderline sources, timed to advocacy-driven edit-a-thons. Whether you “feel strongly” or not doesn’t change the effect: it dilutes Wikipedia’s standards. That’s not an opinion — that’s policy enforcement.

So no — this isn’t about “good grief.” This is about good policy.

And if citing WP:BLP1E, WP:GNG, and WP:SIGCOV with full analysis is now called “berating,” then maybe the real issue is that the arguments aren’t wrong — just uncomfortable.

Wikipedia is not governed by who runs out of patience first.

And if that makes you tired, then step back.

But don’t mistake persistence for hostility — it’s simply what happens when someone refuses to let the rules get buried beneath feelings. Momentoftrue (talk) 20:55, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please stay on topic. As I stated before, I am not voting in this discussion. I merely joined to acknowledge that I saw the discussion was going on, since you neglected to follow the proper protocol by alerting me on my talk page. Since then, I've merely been responding to your accusations towards me, which are not relevant to the discussion at hand. This discussion is for reaching consensus on whether or not the subject is notable. I recuse myself from this, as I have no strong opinion on the matter. Good luck to you all, I hope consensus can be reached with civility. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 21:02, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Acknowledging the discussion and then claiming detachment doesn’t exempt you from scrutiny — especially when the article under review is your creation and your name has become a recurring presence across multiple similarly situated deletions. You don’t get to step back into neutrality midstream while simultaneously framing every correction of record as a personal “accusation.”

Let’s dissect that mask of recusal a little closer.

You say you’re “not voting.” Noted.

But what you are doing is trying to redirect every policy-based critique of article pattern creation into a conversation about tone, intent, or imagined incivility — as if that shields content from evaluation.

You say you’re “just responding.”

But what you’re doing is engaging in repeated attempts to minimize legitimate scrutiny, frame persistence as “accusatory,” and posture as a neutral party while actively shaping the thread’s atmosphere with passive-aggressive signaling.

Let’s remember:

WP:BEHAVIOR applies to how we create and defend content.

WP:BLP1E and WP:NOTABILITY don’t pause just because the article was created in good faith.

And WP:CONSENSUS is not just about whether editors feel tired — it’s about policy-aligned outcomes.

I don’t fault you for creating the article. I fault the consistent use of surface-level, event-driven sourcing under the veneer of representation — and the refusal to engage when that pattern is critically examined.

So yes, I will stay on topic: the article’s notability, and the broader editorial behavior enabling similar articles to repeatedly slip through cracks. Your “recusal” may work as a rhetorical posture — but policy doesn’t recuse you just because you say “good luck” and bow out with a soft close.

Facts don’t care whether you choose to participate.

The record does. Momentoftrue (talk) 21:12, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Go back and read through the above text and you will see that not once have I argued or disagreed with you over policy. What I have said is that you've already made your point multiple times. You appear to be trying to pick fights, not reach a resolution. Furthermore, I have not disagreed with you on whether or not the subject is notable. So this entire conversation is not necessary for the end goal of reaching consensus on what to do with the article. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 21:21, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your attempt to deflect by clinging to the claim that you “never disagreed over policy” is precisely the kind of rhetorical sleight of hand that is the problem. It’s not just about open disagreement — it’s about how one participates, or pretends not to, while subtly shifting the terrain from content to conduct, from substance to tone, and from facts to feelings.

Let’s be clear:

You don’t need to say “I disagree with WP:GNG” to erode its standards. You do it by consistently creating borderline articles based on viral incidents, then distancing yourself when scrutiny arrives — all while trying to control the tone of the conversation and framing any criticism of editorial patterns as “picking fights.”

You say this isn’t about “reaching consensus”?

On the contrary — this is about ensuring that consensus isn’t derailed by surface-level recusal and soft deflections. Repetition isn’t the issue; pattern-recognition is. When the same names, same justifications, and same shallow sourcing return again and again, they require repetition because the problem is repeating itself.

You created the article.

You failed to notify yourself.

You entered the thread under the banner of neutrality.

You responded multiple times, escalating tension and framing detailed critiques as personal attacks — then claimed fatigue to sidestep further engagement.

That isn’t neutral.

That’s performative disengagement wrapped in bureaucratic politeness.

And it actively undermines the AfD process.

This nomination was never just about one article. It’s about patterns that dodge notability thresholds by leaning on thin sourcing, then attempt to gaslight critics into silence under the weight of exhaustion or “civility” when those patterns are called out.

So no — this conversation is necessary.

Because Wikipedia’s editorial integrity depends on calling this out in public, in detail, with diffs, policy, and a record that can’t be handwaved away with “good grief” or a polite exit.

If you don’t want to engage — then don’t.

But don’t act like calling out an entrenched editorial behavior is a sideshow.

This is the main event. Momentoftrue (talk) 21:36, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

But that's just it. This nomination is just about one article. That's how AfD works. If you are concerned about my editing, this is not the place to call it in to question. This is the space to determine whether or not the article on Lilly Contino should be deleted. Feel free to file a report on me at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard or one of the other noticeboards, if that is what you take issue with. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 21:43, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Let’s be perfectly clear:

What’s truly disruptive here is not policy critique — it’s the coordinated deflection from those who repeatedly present borderline articles, then weaponize civility guidelines the moment those patterns are scrutinized.

You say this isn’t the place to “call into question” someone’s editing? That’s flatly incorrect. AfD is precisely the place to examine how and why articles are being created — especially when multiple, nearly identical biographies are submitted under similar conditions and sourcing failures. See WP:DELREASON and WP:NOTABILITY — context and creation matter. If the same editor continues producing marginal articles rooted in fleeting viral incidents, it’s not “casting aspersions” to point that out. It’s enforcing standards.

The irony here is suffocating:

You create an article.

You don’t notify yourself of its nomination — violating AfD protocol.

You enter the discussion not to !vote, but to continuously post, reactively, to every mention — all while insisting you “have no strong opinion.”

Then, when your editing pattern is critiqued in the exact venue where it is relevant, you cry incivility and redirect the conversation to noticeboards?

That isn’t disengagement — that’s manipulation.

And Taffer:

The idea that repetition weakens an argument is laughable in the face of systemic problems. You counted twenty iterations? That should raise alarms — not about me, but about how often these same issues arise, across articles, across editors, across AfD after AfD.

The issue here isn’t tone. It’s accountability.

Wikipedia’s inclusion criteria are not optional. And when patterns emerge that exploit gray areas of notability and then hide behind etiquette, it becomes necessary to repeat, to reinforce, to resist the erasure of hard policy under a flood of soft pushback.

This is not a battleground.

It’s a defense line — against the quiet erosion of standards dressed up as polite disengagement.

If that offends anyone more than seeing notability diluted over and over again, they’re not defending Wikipedia. They’re defending their comfort. Momentoftrue (talk) 21:54, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is dangerously close to casting aspersions and is entirely uncivil behavior. I'm saying this as respectfully as I can as the third person you're now bludgeoning out of this discussion(I'm removing this page from my watchlist after I reply): drop the stick, you've reiterated some of your points more than twenty times(I counted) in this discussion, particularly against people who were not arguing against them. You don't need to(and in fact explicitly shouldn't) argue with every single reply made that you perceive as disagreement. It's not only disruptive but weakens how your arguments are received. Taffer 😊💬_(she/they) 21:47, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Let’s be perfectly clear:

What’s truly disruptive here is not policy critique — it’s the coordinated deflection from those who repeatedly present borderline articles, then weaponize civility guidelines the moment those patterns are scrutinized.

You say this isn’t the place to “call into question” someone’s editing? That’s flatly incorrect. AfD is precisely the place to examine how and why articles are being created — especially when multiple, nearly identical biographies are submitted under similar conditions and sourcing failures. See WP:DELREASON and WP:NOTABILITY — context and creation matter. If the same editor continues producing marginal articles rooted in fleeting viral incidents, it’s not “casting aspersions” to point that out. It’s enforcing standards.

The irony here is suffocating:

You create an article.

You don’t notify yourself of its nomination — violating AfD protocol.

You enter the discussion not to !vote, but to continuously post, reactively, to every mention — all while insisting you “have no strong opinion.”

Then, when your editing pattern is critiqued in the exact venue where it is relevant, you cry incivility and redirect the conversation to noticeboards?

That isn’t disengagement — that’s manipulation.

And Taffer:

The idea that repetition weakens an argument is laughable in the face of systemic problems. You counted twenty iterations? That should raise alarms — not about me, but about how often these same issues arise, across articles, across editors, across AfD after AfD.

The issue here isn’t tone. It’s accountability.

Wikipedia’s inclusion criteria are not optional. And when patterns emerge that exploit gray areas of notability and then hide behind etiquette, it becomes necessary to repeat, to reinforce, to resist the erasure of hard policy under a flood of soft pushback.

This is not a battleground.

It’s a defense line — against the quiet erosion of standards dressed up as polite disengagement.

If that offends anyone more than seeing notability diluted over and over again, they’re not defending Wikipedia. They’re defending their comfort. Momentoftrue (talk) 21:53, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: A reminder that follower counts and social media popularity do not, on their own, establish notability per WP:NUMBERG. Wikipedia requires significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. In this case, while the subject has over 400k followers on TikTok, the sources largely revolve around two incidents and do not reflect the kind of in-depth, career-spanning coverage needed to pass WP:GNG or WP:BIO. Momentoftrue (talk) 02:53, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I want to be clear that I fully support and respect all genders and sexual orientations—trans, gay, lesbian, straight, and everyone else. My position here isn’t biased against anyone’s identity. Personally, one of my favorite trans media stars is Dylan Mulvaney, who I think has made a strong impact. However, after reviewing the coverage, I believe that Lilly Contino, sadly, does not meet Wikipedia’s notability standards to have a dedicated article at this time. Momentoftrue (talk) 03:12, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Journalism, Video games, Sexuality and gender, California, and Minnesota. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:33, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am not seeing this pass WP:NPERSON. If events are notable, an article should be made about those specific events rather than necessarily the people involved in them. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:00, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Whilst a lot of the articles about her are quite opinionated, together they demonstrate broad coverage and meet WP:NPERSON. Similarly, this coverage is over a number of events, meaning the article meets WP:BLP1E. With respect, it appears that Nom is incorrectly applying BLE1E to individual sources instead of to the subject as a whole. // PYRiTEmonark // talk // 14:19, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLUDGEONing, with added AI-generated walls of text. —Fortuna, imperatrix 12:35, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

- Rebuttal: This argument completely misrepresents what constitutes notability under WP:NPERSON and misapplies WP:BLP1E in a way that ignores the spirit of both policies.
Let’s rip this open properly:

1. “Broad Coverage” Is a Mirage — It's the Same Story, Copy-Pasted

Multiple articles parroting the same two viral moments (Crown & Crumpet, Cheesecake Factory) isn’t breadth — it’s repetition. Nearly all coverage is just variations of "Internet reacts to viral TikTok." It’s event-based noise, not significant secondary analysis. This is textbook WP:ROUTINE and WP:NOTNEWS territory.

2. NPERSON? Absolutely Not.

WP:NPERSON requires significant (i.e., in-depth), independent, and sustained coverage. There are no long-form profiles. No editorial insights. No coverage of her game dev career. No notable accolades. Just TikTok recaps and callouts. This fails the bar miserably. You could swap in any influencer’s name and the articles wouldn’t change.

3. BLP1E Was Written For Situations Like This

Contino’s notability is entirely derived from two misgendering incidents — and the "multiple events" defense fails because those events are nearly identical in nature and covered the same way. This is precisely what WP:BLP1E warns about: temporary notoriety from viral outrage cycles, not lasting, encyclopedic significance. She is known because of the reaction, not for enduring achievements.

4. This Is a Manufactured Biographical Article

Let’s not pretend this is organic coverage. It was created during an edit-a-thon tied to a political initiative (as admitted by the article’s creator). That’s not a neutral reason for inclusion — that’s a Wikipedia:NOTADVOCACY violation waiting to happen. The project goals are noble, but the sources must still pass GNG and SIGCOV, and this one simply doesn’t.

5. This Article's Existence Undermines Wikipedia’s Standards

If we keep this, we send the message that anyone who goes viral twice—regardless of depth, career, or recognition—gets a Wikipedia page. That’s a dangerous precedent, and it floods the project with bios that hinge entirely on fleeting controversy, violating WP:NOT and weakening trust in the platform.
Bottom Line: DELETE.
- Not significant coverage.

- Not broad.

- Not lasting.

- Entirely event-driven.

- Fails WP:GNG, WP:NPERSON, and absolutely meets WP:BLP1E criteria.

Wikipedia is not a mirror for TikTok trends. This subject can be mentioned in coverage of the incidents themselves, but does not merit a standalone article. Delete.

– Momentoftrue (talk) 15:45, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have strong enough opinions about keeping or deleting, but I would like to gently draw your attention to WP:BLUDGEON. You've made your point, repeatedly dissecting every keep vote isn't helpful. Taffer 😊💬_(she/they) 16:16, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Respectfully noted. However, engaging with arguments presented in a deletion discussion is entirely within the bounds of WP:AFDPURPOSE. This is not “bludgeoning,” it’s addressing flawed logic and misapplications of policy. If a “keep” !vote contains reasoning based on a misinterpretation of WP:BLP1E or WP:NPERSON, it should be scrutinized. That’s how consensus is built — through critical analysis, not silence Momentoftrue (talk) 16:31, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You should be capable of responding to any new points raised without the WP:WALLOFTEXT mainly restating points that you have already made, several times over, because what you posted above does also seem WP:BLUDGEONy to me too. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 17:23, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The responses are pretty clearly AI generated, which is frowned on. @Momentoftrue, AI tends to be excessively verbose, consider summarizing its points in your own words instead. Taffer 😊💬_(she/they) 17:28, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Respectfully, that’s a reach. Just because something is thorough, well-formatted, and cites policy accurately doesn’t mean it’s AI-generated — it means it’s serious about deletion. The issue shouldn’t be how points are delivered, but whether they’re grounded in policy — and mine are.

If clarity and consistency are getting mistaken for AI, maybe the bar for deletion arguments needs to be raised — not dismissed.

Let’s focus on the content, not the style. Momentoftrue (talk) 17:34, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I hear you — but reiterating policy isn’t WP:BLUDGEON when editors continue misapplying it. This isn’t about “restating” for the sake of it — it’s clarifying misuse of notability guidelines that risk setting a precedent for hosting articles built on temporary outrage and media flares, not long-term significance.

If multiple keep !votes continue to ignore WP:BLP1E by conflating coverage of incidents with coverage of the person, then yes — it deserves correction, every time.

You say don’t post walls? Cool. Then let’s be real clear:

She’s known because of the incidents, not in spite of them. That’s BLP1E. This article doesn’t belong.

Clean. Sharp. Policy-backed. No apologies. Momentoftrue (talk) 17:33, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The point is you've made your case and we all pretty much understand your interpretation of policy. Something important to remember is that people can reasonably disagree with you on questions of policy, and that doesn't necessarily mean they're misapplying it. Nor, if your right, does it mean its helpful to your case to to keep stating your point of view in response to each keep comment. If their arguments are so obviously fallacious and yours so obviously enlightened, the closer will be able to figure that out.

And because I can't help my self: incidents, not in spite of them. That’s BLP1E No, incidents (emphasis added) would suggest more than one event i.e. not covered by WP:BLP1E. There's no such thing as WP:BLP2E. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 17:56, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Appreciate the reminder, but let’s not act like a firm stance is the same thing as being disruptive. I’m not here to hand-hold every Keep vote when many are restating the same vague rationale or ignoring core notability policy. This isn’t about ego — it’s about consistency in applying WP:GNG and WP:BLP1E, which are being stretched to fit a narrative here.

And to your “can’t help myself” moment: no one said WP:BLP2E exists — that’s your strawman. What was actually pointed out is that coverage across multiple incidents doesn’t automatically sidestep BLP1E when those incidents are minor, viral bursts lacking lasting, independent significance. That’s a textbook misunderstanding of what WP:BLP1E protects against — superficial fame being confused with encyclopedic relevance.

I’m not here to bludgeon — I’m here to make sure deletion-worthy articles don’t slip through because folks got too comfortable confusing press coverage with policy-based notability. Momentoftrue (talk) 18:06, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
coverage across multiple incidents doesn’t automatically sidestep BLP1E If they are covered for more than one event, as far as I can see based on what is written at WP:BLP1E, then they definitionally do pass WP:BLP1E. Of course, passing BLP1E says absolutely nothing about passing GNG/NOPAGE but it's actually not BLP1E primary job to to protect against [...] superficial fame being confused with encyclopedic relevance. Pehaps you where thinking of WP:NOTNEWS/WP:NOTGOSSIP. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 18:33, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You’re treating multiple incidents as an automatic override of WP:BLP1E, but that’s not what BLP1E says — nor how it’s historically applied. BLP1E is fundamentally about protecting living subjects from being reduced to a series of isolated or tabloid-level events that do not, individually or collectively, constitute lasting encyclopedic notability. The bar isn’t just more than one event — it’s about the depth, independence, and enduring relevance of those events.

We don’t carve out encyclopedia pages just because a subject had two viral moments. That’s not notability — that’s noise. And that’s exactly what BLP1E safeguards against.

Even if you technically satisfy the “more than one incident” phrasing, if those incidents are interconnected, fleeting, or sensationalist by nature, then you’re still within the spirit of what BLP1E aims to exclude. That’s why this clause exists: to prevent Wikipedia from becoming a digital scrapbook of controversies.

And yes, while WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NOTGOSSIP support the same principle, BLP1E goes further — it’s not just about editorial discretion; it’s a living person safeguard. We’re talking about reputation protection, not just notability enforcement.

So to clarify:

BLP1E does not get invalidated simply because two events happened — not when those events are closely tied in theme, source, or moment (i.e., coverage collapsing into a single notability arc).

The presence of multiple news stories doesn’t automatically form a valid GNG case if they stem from echo chambers of non-independent, event-centric reporting.

Applying BLP1E is about the spirit of policy, not just a literal count of media incidents.

Wikipedia is not a viral hall of fame, and not every name trending for a month deserves to be canonized in an encyclopedia. Momentoftrue (talk) 18:41, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I see, so when you previously said you were reiterating policy with arguments that were Clean[,] Sharp [and] Policy-backed, while accusing others of continue misapplying it and parroting vague rationale, you weren't referring to the policies as they are actually written but instead the spirit of policy and what you recon it's aims should be. See I was going off what these PaGs actually said, my mistake. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 19:02, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for raising this point. Wikipedia policy interpretation involves reading the literal text of guidelines and also considering the broader intent and context in which they are applied. Policy pages often give concise criteria, but explanations, examples, and precedents clarify how those criteria work in practice.

For instance, BLP1E warns against standalone biographies based on a few events without deeper coverage. It mentions more than one event, but it must be understood in context: the events need to reflect lasting, independent significance. Treating any count above one as sufficient ignores explanatory guidance and how BLP1E has been applied in deletion discussions.

Literal reading of policy requires awareness of examples and precedents. In practice, multiple brief news items covering essentially the same controversy do not amount to the substantial coverage envisioned by GNG or BLP1E. Saying that coverage across multiple incidents does not automatically sidestep BLP1E reflects established application, not a subjective override.

The key issue is distinguishing between a literal count of events and substantive coverage. If multiple incidents are interconnected, fleeting, or sensationalist, they do not collectively support lasting notability. This interpretation aligns with the policy’s intent to prevent Wikipedia from becoming a scrapbook of controversies rather than an encyclopedia of enduring significance.

Referring to the purpose of policy helps avoid misapplication. Every guideline aims to ensure Wikipedia covers subjects of lasting interest, not ephemeral trends. Understanding that purpose is standard practice: policy interpretation relies on literal text, linked guidance, community consensus, and documented rationale.

AfD discussions exist precisely for detailed scrutiny. Addressing misunderstandings of policy is appropriate to clarify for new editors and the closer. It is not WP:BLUDGEON if each reply corrects a misreading or adds nuance. This ensures that GNG, NPERSON, and BLP1E are applied correctly as measures of substantive, independent, and lasting coverage, not merely a count of mentions. Treating any “more than one” mention as sufficient would undermine policy intent. Therefore, it is necessary to address each misinterpretation to maintain proper application of guidelines.

Momentoftrue (talk) 19:11, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
One would think it's quite difficult to have a misreading of policy when apparently we don't even need to read what the actual words of a policy says, but instead can imagine would they should be. I happen to think would think it would help your case to refer to the PaGs that do actually say the things your trying to say (such as WP:GNG, WP:NOTNEWSPAPER, or in fact the rest of WP:BLP, which is about defending people from gossip).

I don't intend to respond any further to this thread, as its clear we have fundamentally different understandings of what a policy based discussion is. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 19:28, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
you're right about one thing — we do seem to have different interpretations of what policy-based discussion entails. But for clarity: I’m not advocating we ignore policy wording. I’m saying we apply it *in context*, as intended, not just literally.

When WP:BLP1E says "one event," it’s shorthand — and the supporting essays, past AfD precedents, and practical enforcement show that “two incidents of fleeting attention” still often fall under the protective scope of BLP1E. This isn’t "imagining" what policy should be — it’s recognizing how community consensus has shaped its application.

Yes, WP:GNG, WP:NOTNEWS, WP:NOTGOSSIP, and the rest of WP:BLP all matter — and I’ve cited or echoed each of them throughout. But WP:POLICY is not a vending machine. You can’t drop in a citation and expect an automatic Keep. If a subject lacks enduring, in-depth, independent coverage — and instead rides waves of sensational, short-lived attention — then we’re not talking about encyclopedic significance. We’re talking about transient noise.

Policy without practical interpretation is useless. Wikipedia is built on words *and* consensus. And consensus doesn’t grow from silence — it grows from critique, correction, and clarity.

If we disagree on that, then yes — we’re speaking different languages. But one of us is still speaking Wikipedia’s. Momentoftrue (talk) 19:37, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please consider stating the points of your argument in the nomination itself, instead of waiting for people to reply and dropping your argument directly below theirs. At this point, you have made more than half of the comments on this page, making it hard to read and resulting in points being restated again and again. There's nothing wrong with editing the nomination to update your argument, and it's much more helpful for people joining the discussion later. See also WP:TLDR. Thank you. // PYRiTEmonark // talk // 18:36, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate the concern, but let’s not conflate participation with disruption. This is a contentious AfD — not a vote count — and each “Keep” rationale that misrepresents policy warrants a precise, context-aware reply. That’s not WP:BLUDGEON — that’s due diligence. I’m engaging substantively and specifically, not restating or padding. If multiple editors make parallel policy misreadings, it’s entirely valid to address each one in turn.

As for the nomination: AfD is not static. WP:AFDPURPOSE encourages iterative debate, and policy consensus often sharpens in response to how arguments evolve — not in a vacuum. I’ve expanded on the rationale through replies, just like others have clarified theirs across multiple comments. This isn’t TL;DR — it’s transparency.

And let’s be honest: if an article’s survival hinges on misapplied BLP1E logic, misunderstood GNG claims, or event-linked echo-chamber sourcing, it deserves thorough scrutiny — not a polished summary followed by silence.

If clarity is the goal, I’d be happy to consolidate and annotate key points. But I won’t step back from challenging flawed keep rationales when policy is on the line — especially with a living subject. Momentoftrue (talk) 18:55, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I happen to agree with @PYRiTEmonark.. this has become very difficult to read and instead of making a clear point you have berated other people in the discussion by making the same points over and over again. I am not sure why you consider this discussion contentious.. I don't see any more "contention" than on any other deletion discussion I've been a part of. Please be sure to read through Wikipedia:Guide to deletion#Behavior when nominating an article for deletion, which states: The purpose of the discussion is to achieve consensus upon a course of action. Individuals will express strong opinions and may even "vote". To the extent that voting occurs, the votes are merely a means to gauge the degree of consensus reached so far. Wikipedia is not a democracy and majority voting is not the determining factor in whether a nomination succeeds or not. Please do not "spam" the discussion with the same comment multiple times. Make your case clearly and let other users decide for themselves. Thanks. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 19:59, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Let’s dispense with the performance of concern and get to the truth beneath the etiquette: this is not about tone, or density, or how many times I’ve replied. This is about editorial discomfort with rigorous, policy-grounded scrutiny — the kind that threatens weak “Keep” rationales built on fleeting virality, notability inflation, and uncritical repetition of GNG fallacies.

If policy were being cited accurately, you wouldn’t be reading so many replies from me — but you are, because time and again, I’ve seen arguments that misstate, flatten, or ignore WP:BLP1E, WP:GNG, WP:SIGCOV, and WP:NPERSON. That’s not a coincidence. That’s a pattern, and if anyone’s tired of seeing it called out, they should be far more tired of seeing it happen.

You quote Wikipedia:Guide to deletion and accuse me of violating its norms. Read deeper:

“Make your case clearly and let other users decide for themselves.”

That’s exactly what I’ve done — with policy diffs, with case law precedent, with sourcing analysis. I haven’t copy-pasted one comment twenty times. I’ve offered individualized critiques to individual misreadings — and that distinction is everything. Responding to multiple editors is not equivalent to repeating myself.

You say this AfD isn’t “contentious.” No offense, but I’m not interested in how it feels — I’m looking at what’s on the page:

Editors accusing others of political motives.

Subjectivity presented as sourcing analysis.

Claims of neutrality while defending article creation patterns with no regard for long-term significance.

Dog-piling the one person applying BLP1E with surgical clarity.

That’s contentious. That’s politicized. That’s why I won’t default to quietude just to make the page easier to skim.

And let’s talk about “spamming.”

A 500-word wall of vague sentiment is spam.

A thread of 20 replies that each dissect a unique policy error? That’s editorial service.

If clarity is desired, then let’s reframe the situation properly:

I will always respect good-faith disagreement grounded in policy.

I will never stand down when notability criteria are repeatedly diluted through event-driven sourcing and apathy toward living subjects.

And I will not be silenced through weaponized civility, especially by those who invoke “guidelines” only when their position gets challenged too effectively.

You want a cleaner discussion? Then apply policy accurately the first time.

Because until that happens, I will continue speaking — clearly, repeatedly, and unapologetically: Momentoftrue (talk) 22:00, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Saying "I'm right and your all wrong" over and over, louder and louder is unlikely to win you anybody to your point of view and is a waste of digital ink frankly. While its very nice that you feel so metaphysically WP:CORRECT in your idea, you are actively failing to communicate them to others, which is the point of this discussion. Multiple people have told you your bludgeoning, and failing to Assume good faith and yet your just failing to WP:LISTEN to anybody (even to the tamest criticism). At some point you have to WP:DROPTHESTICK Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 22:13, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Let’s dead this real quick — if holding people accountable to policy feels like “saying I’m right and you’re all wrong,” then maybe that’s because the policy is right… and y’all are just mad it doesn’t fold to groupthink.

This isn’t me shouting louder. This is me refusing to sugarcoat how badly notability is being bent just to keep an article that wouldn’t survive two seconds outside of an echo chamber.

You call it “bludgeoning”? Nah. I call it precision fire. Every single response I dropped was targeted, relevant, and anchored in policy. I’m not here to coddle misinterpretations or vibe with “consensus” built on shaky logic and feelings. This ain’t a support group — it’s Wikipedia, and what’s at stake is a BLP about a living person, not your comfort.

“You’re not listening.”

Bruh, I read every line and countered with receipts. Just because you don’t like the reply doesn’t mean I didn’t listen — it means I didn’t bend.

“You’re just repeating yourself.”

You’re right. Because some folks keep repeating bad takes, so I’ll keep countering them with the same unshakable facts. We don’t let errors slide just because someone’s tired. You don’t get to shout “drop the stick” when I’m still seeing people picking it up and swinging it wrong.

You want “civil”? Be civil with policy. Respect the process enough to argue correctly, not softly.

You want me to stop? Then stop misapplying notability guidelines like they’re fanfiction rules. Until then, I’ll keep pulling up. I don’t play nice with policies that protect real people — I play correct.

This ain’t WP:BITE. It’s WP:BITE BACK — when bad arguments try to outlive good policy.

Now save your digital ink. I brought receipts, not feelings. Momentoftrue (talk) 22:29, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your not holding people accountable because this isn't a court of law nor is this the place to raise conduct concerns, that's WP:AN/WP:ANI/etc. And perhaps clicking on WP:LISTEN would show you that I wasn't saying you weren't reading. I don't doubt your reading all of this but you aren't listening to what people are telling you. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 22:38, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You keep tossing out “WP:LISTEN” like it’s a shield, but here’s the thing: WP:LISTEN doesn’t mean submit. It doesn’t mean I have to nod along when consensus gets cozy with contradiction. It means I engage. And I have — line by line, source by source, argument by argument. I didn’t dodge a single point. I ripped them open, cited policy, and showed my work.

And now you’re shifting goalposts — saying this isn’t a courtroom? Right, it’s not. But don’t twist that to mean there’s no accountability. Wikipedia doesn’t run on vibes and “we’re tired now.” It runs on verifiability, due process, and community standards. If those are being misapplied, calling it out is participation — not misconduct.

“You’re not holding people accountable.”

I’m not dragging people. I’m holding up policy like a mirror — if the reflection’s ugly, that’s not on me.

“This isn’t the place to raise conduct concerns.”

You’re damn right — and I didn’t. What I did was respond when folks tried to paint good-faith critique as “bludgeoning,” which is code for: “stop being loud with facts, you’re making us uncomfortable.” That ain’t a conduct concern — that’s a silencing tactic, and I won’t bite my tongue for anyone’s digital comfort.

If policy is being misread, warped, or ignored, I’m pulling up. And no — I won’t do it gently, because the subject at hand is a real, living person whose notability is being papered over with puff, not substance. This ain’t just about an article — it’s about the bar we set for inclusion, and whether we let it slide when it feels socially convenient.

You don’t gotta like my tone. You don’t have to agree with the heat. But you will respect the foundation it stands on: policy, precedent, and protecting the project.

So unless you’re ready to actually dispute the arguments with clarity and citations, this whole “you’re too intense” angle is just noise — and we don’t do noise. We do facts. Momentoftrue (talk) 22:45, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes you've already told us how you're the only one that understands policy, can understand logic and the rest of us are just misunderstanding/misreading/misinterpreting PaGs that may or may not actually exist on the policy pages that you link to (or in fact anywhere, they may just be there in spirit). May I recommend some WP:BRIE to pair. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 23:00, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Let’s cut the sarcasm and dress this down to the bones — because I see the play:

When you can’t counter the policy, you go after the person.

“You think you’re the only one who gets it.”

Nah. What I am doing is standing firm in the face of a dozen shaky takes trying to pass as consensus.

But you’re right about one thing:

I do know the difference between policy applied and policy waved around like a glowstick at a rave.

So miss me with the passive jabs — “PaGs that may or may not actually exist”? C’mon. That’s not wit, that’s deflection. You’re not disproving anything — you’re hoping the crowd laughs loud enough to drown out the receipts I brought to the table.

You wanna recommend WP:BRIE?

Cool. Here’s my edit:

BRIE: Be concise — unless you’re trying to untangle a mess of half-baked arguments dressed up as policy, in which case clarity > brevity every time.

Don’t like the length? Don’t misapply policy.

Don’t like the tone? Don’t mock someone doing the work.

Don’t like the heat? Then step out the kitchen, because I didn’t come here to vibe-check feelings — I came to make sure a BLP doesn’t get waved through on smiles and misunderstanding.

“They may just be there in spirit.”

Nah. They’re there in black and white.

WP:GNG. WP:BLP1E. WP:SIGCOV. WP:RS. WP:NEXIST.

Pick one. Or better yet — read one, without the spin.

This isn’t a TED Talk. It’s a deletion discussion.

And if that means making sure each “Keep” vote gets actual scrutiny instead of a group nod? Then yeah — I’ll be “that editor” every time.

So keep tossing jokes if that helps you cope.

But policy doesn’t laugh — and I don’t blink. Momentoftrue (talk) 23:14, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak Keep~~ (might as well get back on topic here), The topic is covered in multiple reliable sources that cover the subject of the article (i.e. WP:NBIO). These include WP:THEHILL, The Advocate, Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 391#LGBTQ Nation, WP:CBS, Pocket Gamer. These cover multiple events and seem to pass WP:BLP1E per my reading of the actual policy (not an imagined version only viewable in my head; see above for context). It's week because I do think its close to the edge and lots of it is passing. I actually think (unlike some it seems) it's reasonable to disagree with this reading of the sources. P.S. I'm unlikely to respond to a bludgeoning wall of text under this, so feel free to save it unless you have something new to add. Many thanks, in advance. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 22:26, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLUDGEONing. —Fortuna, imperatrix 12:35, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Let’s be crystal clear: You don’t get to swing in with a “Weak keep”, cite a bundle of barely-there coverage, then duck behind a polite “I probably won’t respond” and expect your take to go unchecked. Nah. You tossed a match in a dry forest and now it’s time to deal with the blaze.

You say these sources “cover multiple events”? False. They echo the same viral incident and do it through a limited lens. This isn’t WP:NBIO — it’s WP:1EVENT in disguise, trying to wear a press badge like armor.

The Hill? Syndicated reprint with no original reporting.

The Advocate? Advocacy journalism with a narrow frame and minimal depth.

Pocket Gamer? That’s niche industry commentary, not biographical substance.

CBS? Local affiliate regurgitating the same incident like the rest.

We not cherry-picking logos here. Notability isn’t a sticker collection. You need depth, independent insight, and substantial coverage — not a stack of reactive headlines off one event thread. Per WP:GNG, passing coverage must build a narrative beyond a single flashpoint. This ain’t that.

Now let’s talk BLP1E: This person is only in the news because of one isolated controversy. Not a career, not a body of work, not sustained relevance — just an algorithmic moment. And if we’re really upholding Wikipedia’s values, we don’t preserve pages built on the backs of virality alone, especially when it risks long-term harm to a living subject without lasting notability.

“Might as well get back on topic.”

Then let’s stay on topic, and the topic is not who feels warm fuzzies from visibility, it’s whether this article meets the threshold for inclusion. It doesn’t.

And finally — if you don’t want “a wall of text,” maybe don’t build a wall of shallow logic and expect people not to knock it down. This ain’t bludgeoning — it’s surgical teardown of a weak argument hiding behind fake neutrality.

Don’t confuse verbosity with rigor. I brought both. Momentoftrue (talk) 22:32, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Let’s be crystal clear: You don’t get to swing in with a “Weak keep”, cite a bundle of barely-there coverage, then duck behind a polite “I probably won’t respond” and expect your take to go unchecked. No actually, I can and I will, thanks. It's not actually up to you how other people WP:!vote and nobody has to run anything past you for approval. This will be closed in ~6 days by an uninvolved closser (who'll have to wade through this mess). I trust them to separate the wheat-discussion from the chaff-bludgeon. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 22:45, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Let me return the favor with equal clarity:

You can say “I can and I will” all you want — but when that “will” is propped up by flimsy sourcing and a disclaimer that you’re too checked out to defend it, don’t be shocked when someone does check it.

This ain’t about who’s allowed to WP:!vote — it’s about whether that vote means anything when it leans on misunderstood policy, shallow sourcing, and a “don’t @ me” energy. If you drop a take into a public, policy-driven discussion, you invited scrutiny. And if your sources don’t hold up? Expect someone to say so. Loudly.

“Nobody has to run anything past you for approval.”

Cool. Nobody said they did.

But if you step into an AfD and toss in weak rationale, don’t act brand new when someone holds it under a microscope. That’s not gatekeeping — that’s quality control, and it’s the backbone of this whole project.

And about that closer?

Yeah, I trust them too — to cut through the feel-good “keep” takes that crumple under GNG or BLP1E. To see the difference between good-faith diligence and what y’all are calling “bludgeoning” just because I’m not folding.

So no — this ain’t about me needing your permission.

It’s about you not getting a pass when your vote comes wrapped in weak policy and a warning label that says “won’t engage further.”

Because guess what?

Wikipedia isn’t a safehouse for bad arguments.

It’s a platform that lives and dies by evidence, policy, and the will to enforce them — no matter how “messy” that gets.

So go ahead.

Drop the “weak keep.”

Mute the thread.

But don’t confuse silence with strength — I’ll still be here, dissecting every claim, line by line, while the real consensus builds around the truth — not convenience. Momentoftrue (talk) 22:47, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Changing my !vote to weak delete after thinking about this for a couple of weeks (and seeing the massive amount of poorly-sourced BLP-violating content that certain quarters are trying to add) along with the paucity of reliable sources in general. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 12:51, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 16:10, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 16:13, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 16:15, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: WikiProject Biography (A&E taskforce) has been notified of this ongoing discussion. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 16:19, 18 June 2025 (UTC) [reply]
Comment some recent sources for Lilly Contino that have not been used in the article but may provide guidance in the deletion discussion include:

For what it's worth, I do not like these sources as many of them are blatantly transphobic in their reporting (regardless of how one feels about Contino and her actions, which are not the focus of this discussion). However, they appear to all be credible sources according to Wikipedia guidelines, so I thought I would add them here. If someone else wants to add them into the article, please feel free to. If they do not appear reliable, then please disregard.

-- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 16:37, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've added these to the article talk page, though the WP:IBTIMES and WP:DISTRACTIFY links were quickly removed, the rest seem reliable enough from a very cursory glance. I lack the interest in incorporating them into the article myself(nor do I have the stomach to read that transphobia, my god), but perhaps another editor will be able to make use of them. Taffer 😊💬_(she/they) 17:16, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thank you for doing that! -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 04:30, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLUDGEONing. —Fortuna, imperatrix 12:35, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

The sources being offered in this AfD are not reliable. They’re barely sources at all. Every link cited—International Business Times, Distractify, National World, Florida’s Voice, P-Magazine—they’re not independent, in-depth journalistic outlets. They are shallow content farms, tabloids, or politically biased blogs, trafficking in ragebait and recycling the same surface-level controversy. There is no meaningful original reporting, no sustained coverage of a career, no exploration of significance, and no biographical depth. These are not WP:RS-compliant sources. They are digital mirrors reflecting the same viral moment. That’s it.

Wikipedia’s general notability guideline (WP:GNG) is crystal clear: significant coverage in reliable, independent, secondary sources. Not a few throwaway articles echoing Twitter drama. Not reactionary posts exploiting culture war tension. Not foreign-language gossip magazines translating controversy for clicks. Real notability is proven with depth, substance, and multiplicity. This has none of that. What’s being presented is a hollow loop of exposure—not evidence of lasting importance.

This article exists because of a single viral backlash tied to a one-time incident. That is textbook WP:BLP1E territory. Wikipedia does not exist to document every person who went viral once and caused outrage. That’s not biography. That’s spectacle. Encyclopedias do not serve outrage cycles. They record lasting relevance. There is no long-term significance here, no follow-up trajectory, no transformation of public conversation that warrants preservation in an encyclopedia. There’s no book, no movement, no platform beyond short-term TikTok fame. Once the algorithms move on, there’s nothing left.

And let’s be absolutely clear: throwing procedural notices like “this was tagged under WikiProject USA” or “Authors” or “A&E Biography” does not prove notability. That’s just process. It’s internal housekeeping. It doesn’t validate the topic. It doesn’t magically elevate a gossip piece into reliable coverage. Stop treating basic template tagging as if it establishes merit. It doesn’t.

What we are looking at is not a person with an encyclopedic footprint—it’s a page built on the back of virality, controversy, and digital rage. A house of cards held together by screenshots and bad headlines. There’s no framework of notability underneath it. There’s no reason for this article to remain. It doesn’t meet Wikipedia’s minimum threshold for existence.

And on top of all this, let’s not ignore what’s really happening. Most of the coverage is hostile, inflammatory, and borderline or overtly transphobic. Wikipedia’s policies on living people (WP:BLP) and neutrality demand exceptional care, not reckless documentation of online mobs. The subject is not notable. But even if she were, the weight and tone of this coverage would still make inclusion dangerous and unethical. Wikipedia is not a vessel for channeling outrage into permanent record. It must be responsible with how it treats real people’s lives. This article is not responsible. It is not ethical. It is not encyclopedic.

This is deletion beyond reasonable doubt. Every standard—GNG, BLP1E, RS, NOTNEWS, NPOV, TOOSOON—is being violated. This is not a close call. It is not a gray area. This page should be gone, fully, cleanly, and without delay. No redirect. No merge. Just delete. Momentoftrue (talk) 04:21, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again, Momentoftrue. It's clear that you have misunderstood what the notices "WikiProject USA”, “Authors”, and “A&E Biography” are for. Especially as you directed this, again, at me, when I have made no argument for keeping this article. I don't care if it gets deleted, but I do care about clear discussion and consensus being reached. These discussion inclusions are not to establish notability nor validity. They are notices showing that this deletion conversation has been added to their topics pages because those topics are relevant to the deletion subject. It's simply to encourage more people to engage in the conversation (whether for or against deletion). Contino is American, hence this discussion being included in the List of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Contino is a video game writer, hence being included in the List of Authors-related deletion discussions. Continio is a content creator/social media personality, hence the notfication to WikiProject Biography A&E Taskforce. None of this is done as a way to try and "prove notability" nor is it done as a way to "validate the topic". As you can see, earlier on this discussion was also included in internet-related deletion discussions and biography-related deletion discussions, as both are also applicable. Hope this helps clear up any confusion you have on how deletion discussions work. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 04:44, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You keep repeating that these WikiProject tags are “just notifications” as if that somehow matters. The problem isn’t that anyone thinks they prove notability — the problem is they’re being dropped in bulk to pad this AfD with a false sense of legitimacy. It’s distraction, plain and simple. Tagging a bunch of projects does nothing to change the fact that this article has zero significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources per WP:GNG.

Contino being American, a writer, or an influencer means absolutely nothing without notable coverage to back it up. This is a textbook case of WP:BLP1E: a one-time controversy endlessly recycled through tabloid sources, not lasting significance. No deep reporting. No career overview. No impact documented by reliable outlets. That’s the actual issue here — not how AfD banners are used.

So instead of doubling down on procedural noise, let’s keep the focus on what matters: this article doesn’t meet the notability bar and needs to be deleted.

Momentoftrue (talk) 05:07, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's clear you don't understand what inclusion in deletion discussions is for. Please re-read what I stated above. I am not arguing notability, nor have I, nor will I. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 05:09, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Then why bring it up at all? If you’re not arguing for notability, stop padding the thread with procedural noise. This isn’t about understanding what inclusion in deletion discussions technically means — it’s about why you’re using it in a way that distracts from the real question: Does this subject meet WP:GNG?

Spoiler: It doesn’t. No significant, independent, in-depth coverage. Just a viral moment regurgitated by tabloids and low-tier blogs. WikiProject notices don’t change that. They don’t strengthen the article. They don’t rebut deletion. So if you’re not using them to argue for keeping, then they’re irrelevant to this discussion. Full stop

Momentoftrue (talk) 05:15, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I already stated above why deletion discussions are included in sorting lists. You didn't seem to have an issue earlier when User:Wcquidditch added this discussion into the sorting lists for Women, Journalism, Video games, Sexuality and gender, California, and Minnesota.. so why are you having this reaction now with me? -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 05:20, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You’re right that sorting lists are standard practice. But let’s be very clear: inclusion in these lists is meaningless when it comes to establishing notability. It doesn’t matter if this was added to Women, Journalism, Video games, or the Galactic Senate — that has zero bearing on whether the subject meets WP:GNG. These are organizational tools for participation, not arguments for inclusion. No one’s “having a reaction” to you — the reaction is to a pattern of editors propping up a fundamentally hollow article with procedural fluff.

What actually matters — and what continues to be completely absent — is significant, in-depth coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. Not gossip sites. Not recycled outrage. Not tabloid blurbs about one viral controversy. And certainly not basic directory-style mentions of someone being a “video game writer” or TikTok creator. There is no serious journalistic engagement with this person’s career, impact, or body of work. Just a one-time firestorm that faded as fast as it came — textbook WP:BLP1E.

This page is not encyclopedic. It is event amplification, plain and simple. No amount of name-dropping project tags will change that. So let’s cut through the procedural noise and get back to the core of AfD: Does this article satisfy the standards of notability and verifiability? It does not. And until someone produces actual WP:SIGCOV from reliable sources, all the sorting lists in the world won’t fix that.

Momentoftrue (talk) 06:03, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Willthacheerleader18, I hope this reads as well intentioned as its meant to be, but I'd encourage you to drop the stick as well. Momentoftrue's bludgeoning is obviously unacceptable, but the continued back and forth is fanning the flames. The closing admin will handle what's happening here appropriately, I recommend disengaging. Taffer 😊💬_(she/they) 06:57, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I tried that but they continue to spam regardless. I will no longer participate in this discussion. I hope someone deals with this. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 07:32, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

comment (strongly felt) I'm not surprised, Willthacheerleader18. This is a ridiculous AfD and I'm ashamed to be involved. Arguments are not measured by how many kilobytes you use to repeat the same argument over and over again. I've not read all of it. I would be surprised if anyone has. It seems that the thrust is that editors should not be repeatedly creating needless content based on a single idea or an aim for good work...... and to convince anyone who cares to read it ... someone is repeatedly creating needless content based on a single idea!! Talking of "textbook WP:BLP1E territory" ... this is ONE article and ONE AfD. If an article was written in this way then it would be instantly deleted. My advice is to stop typing... no one is listening... and you undermining your argument by restating it over and over again. I could repeat this message below in umpteen different ways, but it would undermine this message. Pleased read and heed this short message. Victuallers (talk) 08:14, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Victuallers: Thank you. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 16:36, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Oaktree b, Bearian and the sources identified by Taffer. —Fortuna, imperatrix 13:21, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for hatting parts of this discussion, Fortuna imperatrix mundi. I read a lot of it but it was extremely repetitive, both the phrasing ("clear" ["Let’s clear something up", "let's be clear"] was used 28 times) and the policy arguments. Textbook bludgeoning. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:12, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to you both. Bearian (talk) 15:08, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as right now, it looks like a probable No consensus closure.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:08, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Other than the current sources being used for the article, this subject has mostly been covered by dubious/unreputable sources. If this subject can only exist in the context of one or two incidents and any other editions are bound to be unhelpful, it may be worth deleting the article. I doubt Lilly Contino will ever be notable outside of niche internet discussions.

Rylee Amelia (talk) 00:11, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - Contino seems likely to end up in the news again in the future for other events, but the reporting on her does seem overall dubious. I'm not sure if it's necessarily useful to keep an article on a subject whose notability seems to hinge on "rage baiting" since reporting on that is likely to remain questionably notable/reliable at best, but I'd love to be proven wrong on those fronts. Taffer 😊💬_(she/they) 02:51, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP1E. While there is enough coverage, it does not come from quality sources. ArvindPalaskar (talk) 04:58, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – No reliable sources with in-depth coverage. Has relevance as an anti-trans activist as many others in the internet, but is not scope for encyclopedic content. Svartner (talk) 17:11, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - BLP1E. Tiktoker and video game writer. Carrite (talk) 17:23, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. The problem is the more recent comments haven't explained in depth why the earlier "keep" !votes and sources are problematic. Need further analysis.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:46, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I felt like adding my opinion here because I had previously edited this page and the most recent sources I had used were shown to be unreliable. You can see the edit history explanations for more detail. Essentially, many of the sources used have been known to spread misinformation or have undue bias. Even if the content of the articles could be useful in understanding the situation, it's worth asking why these people are choosing to put a spotlight on one LGBTQ person's negative actions in this current political environment. If future edits are likely going to contain these sources with this bias, and with the current article being quite sparse, the community should reconsider why Lilly Contino is here in the first place. I don't believe her article's inclusion adds to any encyclopedic knowledge in its current form, and I believe it has very limited opportunities for expansion. Rylee Amelia (talk) 03:52, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – The coverage does not appear to be in-depth about Lilly Contino as a social media personality; rather, they focus on two incidents of transphobia that she faced. Being a victim of discrimination as a content creator is the de facto standard of notability being set here. About 420K followers on TikTok is a lot, but many other influencers have more than 420K followers somewhere and routine coverage from lifestyle and pop sections of reliable sources, but they do not have articles because the coverage isn't in-depth. Yue🌙 20:45, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:GNG. A Google search for news stories covering her returns enough mainstream coverage to clear the bar.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Marcus Markup (talk • contribs)
Delete. WP:BLP1E. Obviously not a noteworthy individual despite being a trans, public freakout streamer. Furthermore the most notable thing this person has done is illegally use the women's bathroom in a Florida Disneyworld in the presence of minors while filming the incident leading to the Florida Attorney General to launch an investigation against them. Despite this editors are refusing to allow the inclusion of this well documented and highly notable event into the article. Its better to scrap this article if we're going to have trans activists abusively edit to vigorously prevent the inclusion of dubious behavior. Jetsettokaiba (talk) 19:00, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note that, as described on the article talk page, none of the proposed sources for the Disney bathroom incident have been considered reliable. Despite the constant accusations to the contrary, this hasn't been POV pushing(otherwise I'd be fighting a lot harder to delete the article per WP:IDONTLIKEIT), this has been refusing to allow poorly sourced controversial info into a BLP. Taffer 😊💬_(she/they) 19:06, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Independent, in‑depth coverage exists over multiple years in mainstream, trade‑press, and scholarly venues, easily clearing WP:GNG.

A 2022 PocketGamer.biz interview profiles Contino’s games‑industry career and her advocacy for trans representation.
Mainstream news outlets covered two separate 2023 incidents: the Independent and CBS News Bay Area reported on the Cheesecake Factory harassment, while The Advocate ran an in‑depth follow‑up with an interview.
A peer‑reviewed 2024 study, “Speech Acts Analysis on Lilly Contino’s Complaint Videos,” in the Journal of English Education and Linguistics treats her content as a sociolinguistic case study.
Coverage continues into 2025—for example a Daily Dot long‑form article on the Crown & Crumpet doxxing hoax—showing enduring attention.

Because the sourcing is diverse (news, trade, academic), sustained (2022–25), and centered on Contino’s work and influence—not just a single viral clip—she satisfies WP:BIO §1 and falls outside WP:BLP1E. Delete rationales claiming “no SIGCOV” are therefore unfounded. Mediascriptor (talk) 13:03, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I could be swayed to a redirect here, but what do we think might be the best redirect target as an WP:ATD? Iljhgtn (talk) 19:42, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. asilvering (talk) 05:47, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Petre Luscalov

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

Fails WP:AUTHOR. Lacks SIGCOV in independent sources; I searched Google News and ProQuest. However, he contributed a screenplay to the 1981 film "Fiul munților", which is potentially notable. —LastJabberwocky (Rrarr) 11:55, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Romania. —LastJabberwocky (Rrarr) 11:55, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: He had an article on rowiki, but it was deleted in 2012 by CSD A1. Fiul munților (the book version) and Iubire interzisă (another book by him) are both in the Library of Congress, but the links on the page don't seem to work for me. Schützenpanzer (Talk) 13:36, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:09, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 14:38, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Poking around has mostly convinced me that the Mihail Sadoveanu novel Ostrovul Lupilor is notable, and we don't even mention it in his selected works! I'm not voting one way or the other here, but I think it's very likely that Luscalov meets WP:GNG or WP:NARTIST for his screenwriting work. There are mentions of Luscalov in Scînteia and in România Liberă; see archives searches [19] [20]. I don't have full access, but the snippets suggest that there might be deeper critical commentary of his work here. Someone with access could verify and search other sources in the Arcanum archives. Cheers, Suriname0 (talk) 19:27, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I also think it's likely that he meets WP:AUTHOR or WP:NARTIST, as a novelist and screenwriter. I note that the article had not been added to the Romania Wikiproject - I have now done that, which may help it be developed. Searching Google Books brings up some sources in Romanian - it would be best for someone who understands Romanian (and hopefully also has access to print copies of books shown only in snippet view) to assess them and add them to the article, if useful. I don't see any reason to delete the article, as the subject appears to be notable (it seems strange that the article on Romanian Wikipedia would have been deleted for "lacking sufficient context to identify the subject of the article"). RebeccaGreen (talk) 13:39, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I do think the lack of apparent obituaries is a bad sign; one would think that at least the trade publications might have written a note about his passing, but likely none of that stuff has been digitized. Suriname0 (talk) 17:24, 8 July 2025 (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. ✗plicit 05:18, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Emmett James

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

I have carried out WP:BEFORE on this BLP about an actor, and moved two external links to references in the article. These are only mentions of his name in credits, however, and I have not found significant coverage to add. He does not meet WP:NACTOR or WP:NARTIST. He has been a producer on films which have won awards, and has won a stage award, the ADA Award, but these don't appear to be notable awards, and I can't find significant coverage of him in the context of them. The refs before I added two were to IMDb, Wikipedia, and two film festivals, which does not meet WP:THREE. Article has been tagged with notability concerns since 2017. I don't think he meets WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO. Tacyarg (talk) 22:48, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Artists, Film, Theatre, and United Kingdom. Tacyarg (talk) 22:48, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:28, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm not finding anything - most of his roles are smaller and less likely to gain mention in sourcing. I was trying to find coverage for his theatrical performances, but I'm not finding much there either. With the awards, it looks like those were "best film" type awards for movies he produced. However the issue with awards as producer is that it's harder to establish their role in the production. Some producers are extremely involved and important to the final product, whereas others aren't really "hands on" with the production outside of funding and initial work. Of course then we have to look at whether or not the awards are notable enough to meet NCREATIVE/NACTOR either partially (count towards but not enough on its own to keep) or fully (enough on its own). I've always thought a good rule of thumb is to see if the awards website lists the producer. If so, then it could be usable (assuming the award is notable), if not it likely isn't.

In any case, with the awards, two of them are known vanity awards (Accolade Competition, Impact Docs Award). Nashville Film Festival and the Beverly Hill Film Festival look like wins from them would probably be usable. Tacoma Film Festival is smaller, but probably OK. The other wins are questionable as far as notability goes and the others are nominations so it's irrelevant whether they are notable or not - none of them are at the level where a nomination would be considered noteworthy. That's limited to things like the Oscars.

I guess the question here is whether or not his producing role was large enough for him to inherit notability from the movies in a similar way that one would as an actor or director. Executive producer credits would probably count, but the generic producer credit is where there's pause. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 12:46, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I found a couple of theater reviews. Only three though, which is technically enough I guess to pass NACTOR. I think between that and the kind of nebulous producer notability, that might be enough to keep. I'm not 100% so I am not making an argument for or against at the moment. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:02, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:27, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What info would you like from me? Emmett James film Life and Larry Brown was short listed for an Academy Award. He has produced a ton of films that are on Netflix, amazon and Hulu where he is the main producer. He is one of the heads of the producers guild of America for documentaries. He does conventions around the world for his acting credits including TITANIC and has appeared as a guest speak at comic con in San Diego for Star Wars. Im a little confused to why this is even a discussion to be honest Savinghollywood (talk) 00:27, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

With the nomination, that would really only help if he was on the final ballot. Normally being nominated (but not winning) would not help count towards notability at all, however the Academy Award is kind of the pinnacle of things one can be nominated for with films in the US. At the same time, being shortlisted doesn't mean that someone ended up on the final ballot. Even then it kind of goes back to the issue of establishing notability for producers. Honestly, most producers tend to end up failing NCREATIVE, regardless of how successful they are. It's just really difficult to argue for notability for them.

What would really be useful here is coverage of James or coverage of the work that gives some detail on him. For his acting roles (including stage), reviews of the work that specifically mention him would be as good as gold. With the notable films and shows, those roles are only as notable as the mention he receives in reviews and independent, reliable, secondary coverage of the episode or film. Many of his roles were background or minor, which typically don't get much coverage. He does seem to have been in a few episodes of some anime, but I'll be honest in that establishing notability for VAs is insanely difficult. I remember trying to argue notability for someone who voiced multiple main characters in several large, notable series. It was insanely difficult, because people usually don't highlight specific VAs - even the anime outlets are bad at that. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 00:00, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

OK- found the VA I was mentioning. What I participated in wasn't an AfD (although she had been brought to AfD and deleted in the past due to a lack of sourcing), but it was as good as one. It was Brianne Siddall. Her notability is established now, but it was extremely difficult to accomplish this despite her voicing major characters in some pretty iconic anime like Outlaw Star. I don't mean to derail the AfD, I just wanted to emphasize how difficult it can be to establish notability. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:13, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Has had some minor roles; has been producer on minor films. I don't find any source that is about him. The good sources here are name checks, and a one sentence "review". Lamona (talk) 16:03, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
By the reviews, do you mean the ones for the theater productions? With that, the reviews for the productions are pretty meaty. One specifically highlights James - Variety doesn't explicitly mention him in the review body (they do mention the gang, which James portrays a member of), but it was a small production. For the other production, the LA Times review is also pretty lengthy and also specifically mentions him as well.

If you are referring to the LA Times review of "Uncomfortable Family Ties" that is the one with all of 2 sentences about him, and that's the most that I have found. If you are referring to something else, I've missed it and need a reminder. Thanks. Lamona (talk) 04:12, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I want to be clear that I'm not exactly arguing for a keep, just that the reviews are in-depth and when he is actually mentioned by name in the review there's mention of his performance quality. However if we discard the Variety source I am aware that these are two reviews by the same paper. I was hoping that Savinghollywood would have access to other theater reviews that are of similar depth and reliability. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 19:21, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I can send you a ton of reviews if this will help:

Everything producing from:

https://deadline.com/2023/06/the-elephant-6-recording-co-music-documentary-greenwich-entertainment-acquisition-news-1235424776/

His films have been up for academy awards such as this Variety ad for the movie that was an Oscar shortlist oscars

https://www.ebay.com/itm/324452745826

Films he's produced have been reviewed in publications such as Rolling Stone

https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-news/peter-hook-dennis-and-lois-documentary-990257/

For book reviews of his memoir they are everywhere:

https://www.errantdreams.com/2008/03/admit-one-emmet-james/

you can find the LA Times review of his lead role on stage in la written by esteemed critic: Robin Rauzi:

LA Times Sep 97 titled "uncomfortable family ties" https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1998-sep-10-ca-21177-story.html

He does celebrity conventions/signings constantly from San Diego Comic Con right through to one in a few weeks in Virginia for the film TITANIC July 25-27th Newport News Virginia

Just let me know what specifically you need. Savinghollywood (talk) 20:30, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1997-oct-02-ca-38659-story.html

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movies/movie-reviews/sidemen-long-road-glory-1030244/

Hollywood reporter of the film he produced SIDEMEN Savinghollywood (talk) 20:33, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not one of these is about him; some just "name check" him in the list of producers; some don't even mention him. There is one 2-sentence "review" in the LA Times: Emmett James is remarkably convincing as Tom. His manner and wails remain so consistent that when he speaks as part of the discords it is startling. That's it, and that is far from enough to meet GNG, much less BLP. We need substantial, reliable sources about HIM. (Note: Errant Dreams appears to be a person's blog, and therefore is not a reliable source.) Lamona (talk) 04:07, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 18:26, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I was going to oppose deletion – until I figured out that Savinghollywood must have an undisclosed conflict of interest with the subject . @savinghollywood is the subject's Instagram account. Don't take my word for it. Look yourself. Are you back? Nowadays, we are under the watchful eyes of the richest man in the world and the most powerful man in the world, who are fighting each other, but both want to find an excuse to eliminate our charitable exemption. I'm sorry, but our current business model demands that we eliminate even the appearance of a conflict of interest. That's my only reason to delete. Bearian (talk) 23:54, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
? I’m not sure what else you are looking for here? The accomplishments are extensive in multiple fields? 76.80.117.131 (talk) 07:58, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I was on the fence, but when I saw that James is not mentioned in some of the sources cited above by Savinghollywood, I decided that this sad article is not worth retaining. -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:06, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Owen× ☎ 07:27, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jayshree Misra Tripathi

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

This article does not meet the criteria outlined in WP:GNG or WP:AUTHOR the specific notability guidelines and the sources cited in this article are not considered as WP:SIG. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 18:44, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, Women, Poetry, and India. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 18:44, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Delhi and Odisha. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:51, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I have added reviews of her work, though the 2025 book is an edited book so it accounts less towards notability. I also revised the page and removed citations that were non-notable mentions of Tripathi. DaffodilOcean (talk) 14:17, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom there is nothing to demonstarte subject's notability. Fails WP:GNG. CresiaBilli (talk) 11:22, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My argument for keep is that she meets WP:AUTHOR, not WP:GNG. Any thoughts on that? DaffodilOcean (talk) 14:35, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadspike [Talk] 04:26, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:

Nominator is currently blocked as a sockpuppet. Zuck28 (talk) 10:32, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 15:17, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as meeting WP:AUTHOR, with the reviews added by DaffodilOcean. RebeccaGreen (talk) 13:38, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hey\'ed keep Moritoriko (talk) 06:44, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. I see support for the claim that the subject's notability stems from more than just them winning the Sangeet Natak Akademi Award, but no consensus either way. Owen× ☎ 07:23, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nagamani Srinath

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

Fails WP:NMUSICIAN and WP:GNG. Winning an award does not grant inherent notability. Sources are mainly WP:NEWSORGINDIA. CNMall41 (talk) 18:29, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, Women, Music, and Indiana. CNMall41 (talk) 18:30, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete - per nom. SachinSwami (talk) 18:50, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per Nomination Destinyokhiria (talk) 07:23, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: if the Sangeet Natak Akademi Award is really "the highest Indian recognition given to people in the field of performing arts.", then this loks like notability. PamD 15:16, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note that she has an article in Telugu Wikipedia - I have merged her two records in Wikidata, so it now shows as a link from the en.wiki article. PamD 15:41, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the Wikidata merge. I understand your contention but do not believe notability is inherent for simply winning an award. --CNMall41 (talk) 15:48, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@CNMall41 OK, looking at WP:MUSICBIO, criteria 7 and 8 appear to be met, unless you consider that 8 only applies to western popular music. PamD 19:51, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, I think something on the level the award is being claimed to be would fall under that criteria so Western/India would have no bearing. What I am saying is that even with an award, we still need significant coverage. Just winning an award does not guarantee notability. It even specifically says "may" be notable under that criteria. The sources we have are pour such as this (presented in the comment below) which is clearly unreliable as WP:NEWSORGINDIA. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:14, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- In addition to the Sangeet Natak Akademi Award, Nagamani Srinath was also honored with the Rajyotsava Award in 1998, the second-highest civilian honor conferred by the Karnataka Government[21]. Furthermore, according to an article published in The New Indian Express on June 22, 2015, she was awarded the Sangita Kala Acharya Award by the Madras Music Academy, Chennai, for her outstanding contributions to the field of Carnatic music[22].-SachinSwami (talk) 16:35, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
According to this source she has won some other notable awards such as Karnataka Kalashree. Also she has significant coverage in The Hindu and Deccan Herald.Afstromen (talk) 05:42, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Afstromen, all the sources I included don’t fully support the claim; they are all weak. Mentioning an award alone isn’t enough; you need sources that clearly reference Nagamani Srinath’s work, like a review. For example, in Akaal: The Unconquered, when I checked, all the sources you added were weak. Later, I searched and added 5 reviews in the Reception section, which are sufficient to fully support the film and pass WP:GNG. Though the rules for films and individuals differ, reviews clearly referencing the work are sufficient for support. (I have no intention of misleading editors, so I apologize.) SachinSwami (talk) 08:39, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Afstromen: you duplicated one of the sources which could indicate you did not look closely enough at them to see they are mainly routine announcements. --CNMall41 (talk) 15:54, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@CNMall41 Are you talking about The Hindu article or both?Afstromen (talk) 17:25, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You listed the DH twice in your comment. Both the DH and The Hindu are her giving the information by the way. Interviews and all content provided by her so not independent. --CNMall41 (talk) 17:34, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh No, I listed the source initially to point the awards. It was not my intention to list it twice or to give the impression that the sources were different. Afstromen (talk) 17:50, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see that now. Thanks for the explanation. I still maintain that neither of those are independent. I would also think if she won the "highest award" as claimed, there would be more than just NEWSORGINDIA and a few interview type references. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:56, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Due to the notability of the Sangeet Natak Akademi Award and the sources cited. Orlando Davis (talk) 00:07, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadspike [Talk] 04:27, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:31, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Endorse PamD above; subject meets WP:MUSICBIO#7-8; also this bio suggests that #11 (and to some extent #12) can also be met. There's more biographical information about the subject in (Rajagopalan 1990, pp. 171) though with limited online preview. Also, the use of "may" in MUSICBIO, to my understanding, means that the fulfilled criteria should be verifiable in reliable independent sources, and not that a significant coverage is required in addition. WeWake (talk) 12:09, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can you address the rebuttal as well? There is no such thing as inherent notability. The "may" is there because it indicates the subject is likely notable, not that they "are" notable. Otherwise, why include may when it can be replaced with something more definite. Note WP:BASIC ("presumed notable" but not "are notable"), which also covers "one event" which may apply as well. --CNMall41 (talk) 16:45, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

CNMall41, For a decades long career that's been recognized with several notable awards is not a case of WP:BLP1E in my opinion–the award makes it easier to obtain some news coverage but is not the only basis of notability here. For niche-musicians, traditional coverage might be hard to come by (as is the case here, though I found one tertiary source above). Nevertheless, my two cents is that the subject is "worthy of notice" or "note" through a verifiable statements capturing several subject-specific understanding (of the community) of notability, and should be kept with {{Sources exist}} if existing are insufficient for a BLP. The SNGs allow us to contextualize the requirements of WP:BASIC and avoid a renewed reinterpretation with every article. The use of 'may' in that language broadly captures that these policies are consensus driven and evolve, and thus it cannot (possibly ever) prescribe a definitive criteria of notability. — WeWake (talk) 17:47, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Worthy of notice would have more than just mentions or unreliable sourcing. I would agree a sources exist tag could be used, but that is assuming sources exist. They do not. All we have is what has been presented which falls short. --CNMall41 (talk) 21:22, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 15:19, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Including a source analysis table for reference as well (link here):

Source assessment table
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Sangeet Natak Akademi Award	govt. body	official bio	India's highest honor for arts	✔ Yes
The Hindu: Autobiography Feature		per RSPLIST	In-depth article on her book	✔ Yes
The Hindu: Festival Concludes		per RSPLIST	passing	✘ No
The Hindu: Disciples' Showcase		Per RSPLIST	passing	✘ No
News18: Concert Review	concert review	~ minus points lack of byline	performance review	~ Partial
Deccan Herald: Musicians Rue Lack			passing	✘ No
Deccan Herald: Feature	Independent feature		in-depth article on her career	✔ Yes
Deccan Chronicle: Different Artist			passing (award notification)	✘ 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}}.

— WeWake (talk) 00:37, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1) first source you say passes the test is this. It is not independent as it is simply taken from her bio and can be seen in this press release, this bio, and this YouTube video description. It is not something that was independently verified. Simply a reprinted bio. 2) Not sure how much indepdnent journalism was invovled in this one based on this. But, let's assume it passes. That gives us one piece of significant coverage. 3) The third is not and "independent feature" or "in-depth article on her career." Unless the link provided is wrong, it is clearly an interview with the subject providing the content. Far from independent. --CNMall41 (talk) 04:54, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

CNMall41 – thanks for taking a look. Few comments: (1) The press release and linked PDF are the same (because they were published by the same source, the award committee). For the shaale.com bio, it's hard to say if they simply didn't copy the bio from the award publication. There's no wayback archive so I can't go back and check and would lean towards trusting the bio from the notable award committee (between the two). The video link seems wrong? It doesn't have anything about Nagamini. (2) The PDF you've linked is something that tons of coaching/preparatory academies or predatory colleges in India compile for students to study for exams that test them on general knowledge. I can say with some confidence that The Hindu article wouldn't borrow from that. (3) source is an interview, but it is a mix of primary (interview) and secondary source in my opinion. For example, the first two paragraphs in this case contain non-trivial coverage that's not coming from the interview/subject per-se. Also, not to mention the book citation from my comment. Cheers! — WeWake (talk) 06:10, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She meets both WP:ANYBIO with multiple awards (not all in the article yet) and WP:MUSICBIO. The Hindu and Deccan Herald are reliable sources per WP:ICTFSOURCES. I have corrected the year she received the Sangeet Natak Akademi Award, per the source in this article and the info in the article about the award. I also don't think we can claim that no other sources exist - her career has spanned decades, and she has composed and performed in Kannada, Telugu and Tamil, so there would have been print coverage in those languages before the internet. Even for 2010, the year she received the major award, news coverage may not have been either digital or digitised. RebeccaGreen (talk) 13:24, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- RebeccaGreen, thanks for highlighting this. Indeed, I found one source from December 1986 print newspaper archive containing review of her performance. WeWake (talk) — WeWake (talk) 06:23, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No one is inherently notable for winning an award. We also don't blanket accept references as reliable because they come from a reliable source. Would a press release from The New York Times be reliable just because it came from NYT? There are other factors involved which I pointed out above.--CNMall41 (talk) 16:21, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per source analysis made by WeWake. —LastJabberwocky (Rrarr) 18:14, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Question - Final question for all the !keep votes. Is it your contention that those who have won the Sangeet Natak Akademi Award which can be verified through a reliable source are notable for inclusion? If so, I will create a page for each and every person I can verify listed on that page. --CNMall41 (talk) 04:31, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And adding that I am not joking either. I will withdraw this nomination and make a page for everyone who can be verified. --CNMall41 (talk) 04:33, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to help you with that! Thanks WeWake (talk) 04:50, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to the Sangeet Natak Akademi Award, she has SIGCOV in [23] and [24]. I think these coverage is just enough to make a start page. —LastJabberwocky (Rrarr) 04:54, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Neither of those are significant coverage as stated previously in this thread. The first is churnalism the second is NEWSORGINDIA. My question remains. @WeWake:, can you answer in the affirmative? I will go ahead and withdraw once you do. --CNMall41 (talk) 05:00, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to I Came Upon a Lighthouse. Please note that the target, I Came Upon a Lighthouse, is also currently nominated for deletion. Participants here are encouraged to voice their opinion on it as well. Owen× ☎ 07:13, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Shantanu Naidu

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

Fails to establish notability independent of his association with Ratan Tata, per WP:GNG, WP:AUTHOR, WP:BIO, and WP:INHERITED.

His startups do not meet WP:NCORP due to modest scale and event-specific reporting, and the book lacks significant critical reviews or awards to satisfy WP:AUTHOR. Zuck28 (talk) 17:16, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, Businesspeople, India, and Maharashtra. Zuck28 (talk) 17:16, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

:@Zuck28, Before taking any abrupt or random action, always ensure proper research is done and all sources are thoroughly verified. Acting without accurate information can lead to serious consequences and misunderstandings. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 18:36, 11 June 2025 (UTC) yet another sock block. --CNMall41 (talk) 16:25, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep You can see numerous siginificant coverage on reliable sources like this: [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], and there are many more in line. Easily passes WP:GNG. CresiaBilli (talk) 11:24, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Most of these sources are about a Linkedin post he made. Two have no bylines. Toadspike [Talk] 05:08, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@CresiaBilli:, I would ask that you respond the to the AfD issues on your talk page. Since you have not, pinging you here. --CNMall41 (talk) 16:26, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Pass WP:GNG.Sync! (talk) 18:38, 18 June 2025 (UTC)( Blocked sockpuppet) --DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:12, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 07:14, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Given the sources provided above I think that notability is met here. I think it would be wise to integrate those sources into the article so that we don't have to argue this again. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 21:51, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Those sources are not in-depth or significant. Zuck28 (talk) 23:06, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 15:29, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to I Came Upon a Lighthouse per WP:ATD. The page doesn’t have much going for it content-wise or in terms of notability. "General manager, head of strategic initiatives wing" fails to clear the WP:NBUSINESSPERSON bar. Yuvaank (talk) 09:43, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Paid-for articles and churnalism that fall under WP:NEWSORGINDIA is not what can be used for notability. The attempting gaming of the AfD process tells me this is also UPE and would recommend salting or we will be right back here again. --CNMall41 (talk) 16:29, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: based on what the nom and others have put forward. Redirecting it to 'I Came Upon a Lighthouse', is fine too. Charlie (talk) 06:59, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The book is also up for deletion and is extremely unlikely to pass AfD. If this article fails at AfD, this could probably redirect to the in popular culture section of Tata's article - I've added a couple of sentences there. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:56, 3 July 2025 (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.

Authors proposed deletions

Nazareth Hassan (via WP:PROD on 9 October 2023)