Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Actors and filmmakers

WP:DSACTOR

All deletion discussions relating to filmmakers, directors and other non-actor film-related people should now be listed on this page.

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

Adding a new AfD discussion

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

Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Actors and filmmakers|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.

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

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

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

Further information

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

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

Purge page cache

watch

Scan for actor AfDs

Scan for filmmaker AfDs

Actors and filmmakers

Smruthi K

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

Fails Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria:

If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability.

Anybody who checks the first two links, they are YouTube interviews from sources that are listed unreliable at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Film/Indian_cinema_task_force#Guidelines_on_sources (both Indiaglitz and Behindwoods). The third source is a just a short film link.

Also, she is very low-key, dubbing for films in not the original language such as K.G.F 2 (non Kannada/Hindi version) and Petta (non Tamil version). She only seems to dub in Tamil original versions for Raashii Khanna.

A quick WP:BEFORE yields nothing. DareshMohan (talk) 01:04, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, and Tamil Nadu. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:14, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keshav Prakash

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

Article subject requests deletion per Wikipedia:NPF and Wikipedia:BLPREQUESTDELETE . See VRT Ticket 2025031410001554. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 22:54, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Karnataka. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:24, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mungo McKay

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

Does not meet WP:NACTOR, which requires that "the person has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." McKay played one of the leads in the low-budget film Undead, but his other roles have been rather minor. Chrisahn (talk) 22:26, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Chrisahn (talk) 22:26, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:22, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep has enough sources for a stub Wikipedia article. Eric Carpenter (talk) 02:17, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Megan Domani

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

not notable actress, not meeting WP:ACTOR, Anybio. OatPancake (talk) 13:55, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. OatPancake (talk) 13:55, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, and Indonesia. Shellwood (talk) 13:58, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Sandor

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

Fails WP:NACTOR, with no roles of any particular note. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:27, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Pennsylvania. Shellwood (talk) 13:14, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Passes NACTOR through roles in Bonnie's Kids, The No Mercy Man, Stryker (1983 film), Hell's Angels '69, Fire and Ice (1983 film) and The Only Way Home (Coverage here, here and here). Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 15:16, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also passes GNG through coverage here, here, here, here and here. Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 15:25, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:46, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Other than Fire and Ice (for which he provided his voice), the films are obscure and seen by few. One one of the examples of "coverage" is viewable, and that one doesn't even mention him. The rest are paywalled, and I strongly suspect are merely passing mentions. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:49, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Every single one of the sources listed for GNG discusses Sandor's career so I don't know which one you're talking about. If you're talking about the book, that one was listed to prove that The Only Way Home is notable and that Sandor's role in it is significant, and the sources actually does talk about Sandor. That the films are "obscure and seen by few" is complerely and utterly irrelevant for NACTOR. Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 01:15, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Priyansh Jadav

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

Indian singer who doesn't seem to meet notability guidelines. A WP:BEFORE search doesn't come up with any WP:SIGCOV. The is also a possible COI. The article was turned down at AfC several times, after which the creator move it to mainspace. John B123 (talk) 19:24, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Music, and Gujarat. John B123 (talk) 19:24, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:31, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – The article is about a singer who has been active since 2023 and has coverage on IMDb, YouTube, and Instagram. His performances, especially in dual male-female vocals and yodeling, have gained attention and are verifiable. References are being added to meet Wikipedia’s standards. The article is improving and shows potential for notability.

--13StudioPresent (talk) 06:38, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I don't think to say it, but IMDb, YouTube (with exception for interviews as an additional source), and Instagram are not reliable sources. Nothing comes out in the Google news nor on the ProQuest. LastJabberwocky (talk) 12:57, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Lesly

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

Actor with a few minor roles, only claim to notability is that he served on a high-profile jury. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 22:48, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, United States of America, and New York. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 22:48, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Some media talking about the trial [1], but that's in interview. The acting roles do seem trivial, I'm not sure the jury is notable. Oaktree b (talk) 23:13, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Probably should be judged as an author. His book was reviewed in The Pittsburgh Press, 23 February 1989, "Juror at Goetz trial tells thorough, but sanitized tale" by Matthew M. Franckiewicz. And in Waterloo Region Record, 14 January 1989, "Goetz juror takes readers behind the scenes" by Eugene McCarthy. And in this Journal. And Washington Post. duffbeerforme (talk) 03:22, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Stefan Pop (Dutch comedian)

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

The sourcing here is at best dubious: some theatrical database, a club and a festival. The subject is likely associated with all three; all three are promotional blurbs. Independent coverage is glaringly absent. — Biruitorul ^Talk 18:11, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Actors and filmmakers. Bobby Cohn (talk) 18:15, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is the ugly side of Wikipedia. The sources used are qualitative in nature. But to satisfy you I have used a few more sources from the largest newspapers in the Netherlands. I also do not appreciate that you insinuate that I am in any way connected to Stefan Pop. Coriovallum (talk) 18:34, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:55, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are quite a lot of articles available, but they are mostly connected to the recent sketch and a recent incident in Lubach. But there is for example this interview, which signals some notability. Dajasj (talk) 08:05, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rainer Strecker

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

I was unable to find significant coverage about this German actor. His name appears in many movie databases, but that is not enough to establish notability. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 16:56, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, and Germany. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 16:56, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Deletion unnecessary Servite et contribuere (talk) 16:58, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain why? WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 17:34, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WhoIsCentreLeft It is kind of a waste of time, or IDK. Just not a big issue. And this article clearly isn't a case of Vandalism Servite et contribuere (talk) 18:23, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WhoIsCentreLeft Wikipedia can survive with articles on Non Notable People if it is written in a NPOV Servite et contribuere (talk) 18:24, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You are very wrong... According to rules of Wikipedia, if an article fails WP:GNG, it must be deleted, even if its not vandalism or written in neutral tone. Also, non-notable and unsourced articles like this decrease the quality of Wikipedia. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 18:37, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WhoIsCentreLeft Two Questions. One, isn't this just a guidline? It does say on Wikipedia:Notability These guidelines only outline how suitable a topic is for its own article or list. They do notlimit the content of an article or list, though notability is commonly used as an inclusion criterion for lists (for example for listing out a school's alumni). For Wikipedia's policies regarding content, see Neutral point of view, Verifiability, No original research, What Wikipedia is not, and Biographies of living persons. Second, how does it decrease the quality of Wikipedia? Servite et contribuere (talk) 19:29, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

According to WP:DEL, articles that fail notability guidelines are subject to deletion. This article violates Wikipedia policy so it should be deleted. Keeping articles that violate Wikipedia's policy definitely harms its quality. I hope you understand. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 20:02, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WhoIsCentreLeft I understand the policies, but I was asking about the point of the policies on notability Servite et contribuere (talk) 23:39, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WhoIsCentreLeft I don't think this: "Reasons for deletion include, but are not limited to, the following (subject to the condition that improvement or deletion of an offending section, if practical, is preferable to deletion of an entire page):" specifically says "It must be deleted". What does? Servite et contribuere (talk) 23:42, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom: also could not find reliable sources discussing the subject. /over.throws/^✎ 17:45, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Added audiobook work and references which brings the article inside WP:GNG. Inwind (talk) 20:01, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There's additional material in the German Wikipedia as well. I tagged it for that purpose. --Jahaza (talk) 21:19, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tiffany Trump

AfDs for this article:

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

WP:INVALIDBIO and WP:NOTINHERITED. Barron Trump was recently closed as a redirect, and many of the arguments for he being redirected apply to Tiffany as well: the article isn't very long, she isn't in the public eye very much, and coverage of her invariably mentions her father. Both Barron and Tiffany are adults now. Some presidential children have their own articles; many do not. Her notability hasn't been discussed in nine years (during which there were multiple Barron AfDs) so discussing it now seems fair. _pbp 14:28, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Women. _pbp 14:28, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:44, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:45, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:45, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:45, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:45, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:46, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:46, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:48, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:48, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:49, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep; the decision with respect to Barron Trump has since been reversed, and in any case this is both an WP:OTHERSTUFF assertion, and one where the subject at hand is clearly more notable. BD2412 T 14:49, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think the assertion "clearly more notable" needs some evidence backing it up... _pbp 16:11, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
One of the complaints about Barron in the discussion was that he kept a politically lower profile, whereas she was a speaker at the Republican National Convention, with the requisite press coverage. BD2412 T 17:17, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Tiffany in turn keeps a much lower profile than Junior, Eric and Ivanka though... _pbp 19:27, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - She was already deemed notable by the community in two previous AfD attempts, becoming so thanks to media coverage the first time her father ran for President, and notability is not temporary. While she is less political than the rest of the family, her fashion business and occasional speeches in connection with her father have generated media coverage. Also, a person's love or hatred of the limelight is not part of the notability calculus, and we do not have a mathematical formula here for how "low" or "high" someone's profile should be. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 23:01, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Sufficient WP:SIGCOV to estabilishes WP:GNG per her own. Svartner (talk) 03:07, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the amount of significant coverage is massive, as the article clearly shows. Passes WP:GNG with flying colours.--cyclopia ^speak! 11:59, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - She has been deemed notable by the folks on here in three previous attempts to kick her off here! The editor who keeps nominating her must have some serious TDS issues. May receive the help they so desperately need!Subman758 (talk) 00:12, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The previous nominations were almost a decade ago by different editors, and AfD #3 was only closed as keep because it was right after AfD #2. _pbp 16:20, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - She has been deemed notable. She meets WP:GNG. Vitorperrut555 (talk) 16:04, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Raymond C King

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

Fails WP:NPRODUCER. Most of the sources presented are either unreliable or have no connection to the subject in question. A WP:BEFORE shows very little coverage, which proves that the subject isn't notable enough. Article also appears to be an autobiography, so WP:COI issues are a possibility. CycloneYoris ^talk! 01:43, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Businesspeople, Engineering, Software, California, and Pennsylvania. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:00, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Unable to find any independent coverage. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 02:37, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TNT. Any article with AI-lauding claims in the lead is a speedy delete for me. It's a wall of citations, bollocks, and promotional weasel words. Bearian (talk) 20:02, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:NPRODUCER specifically requires more here than can be found in a google search. Not enough to keep this. Iljhgtn (talk) 21:21, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nyomi Banxxx

AfDs for this article:

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

This doesn't seem to meet WP:NENTERTAINER. It's super promotional but that could be fixed if the subject was notable, which doesn't seem to be the case. BuySomeApples (talk) 04:25, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, Radio, Sexuality and gender, and Illinois. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:58, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Citations are fake, article is low quality, possibly generated by a llm and the creator has been banned see here for more info. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty nine (talk) 11:31, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and per previous deletion discussion. Little has changed or improved. JFHJr (㊟) 01:46, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for still failing WP:BASIC and WP:NACTOR. Take out the aforementioned AI-generated fake citations, and there are no new facts nor RS coverage since the previous AfD deletion. An independent WP:BEFORE search yielded no significant independent RS coverage. • Gene93k (talk) 02:57, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete looks like paid WP:PROMO, especially with heavily worded language like "breakthrough" and the fake or junk sources. Speedy Delete even is warranted. Iljhgtn (talk) 21:23, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alison MacInnis

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

Redirected but restored. Doesn't meet WP:GNG, no references. Should be deleted as no obvious single redirect target has significant information beyond a mention about this person. Draftify most appropriate. Geraldo Perez (talk) 18:51, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, and United States of America. Shellwood (talk) 18:54, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is pointless. She and her character became famous on their Power Rangers thing a long time ago, it should never be deleted. 31.22.146.236 (talk) 19:07, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Photography, and Internet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:06, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Power Rangers cast members#Power Rangers Lightspeed Rescue (2000) (with the history preserved under the redirect) per Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion. A redirect with the history preserved under the redirect will allow editors to selectively merge any content that can be reliably sourced to the target article. A redirect with the history preserved under the redirect will allow the redirect to be undone if significant coverage in reliable sources is found in the future. Cunard (talk) 08:22, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- In my searches for sources, I found only passing mentions like this and this as well as two sentences of coverage here. She is quoted in this article in ComicBook.com, which is listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sources#Inconclusive discussions. There is insufficient coverage for Alison MacInnis to pass Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria and Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. I think the Power Rangers cast members list is a good redirect target since all mentions of her on Wikipedia are related to the Power Rangers franchise. Cunard (talk) 08:22, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  I agree: redirect. -Mushy Yank. 18:09, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If the decision is to restore the redirect, at least protect it so that only editors who can create new articles can override the redirect with an article. Geraldo Perez (talk) 18:14, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- I support protecting the page given the extensive history of editing warring on the page. Aside from a revert by Haplogroup X (talk · contribs) whose account is locked, all recent edits to revert the redirects were from IP addresses, so semi-protection—rather than extended confirmed protection or full protection—may be sufficient. Cunard (talk) 21:10, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Power Rangers cast members#Power Rangers Lightspeed Rescue (2000). Despite what the IP (since temporally blocked for adding poorly sourced content to BLPs) says above, it doesn't matter famous we subjectively think their are, we need some evidence that she was covered in depth, in multiple WP:reliable sources, to meet WP:GNG or WP:NBIO; or else that she meets some part of WP:ENT. As with others, I'm failing to find such coverage. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 18:28, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Bilton

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

Article was created by a sockpuppet account named "Novonium", since blocked indefinitely, in 2012. The article appears to have a pretty rich editing history by socks, also since blocked, in the years following its creation. There is a strong WP:DENY argument to be made alone for deleting this article.

Additionally, most of the sources mention Nick Bilton in passing or refer to works of his but are not about the man himself. Therefore, though articles about some of Bilton's work might be notable, the subject matter BLP, Bilton, is himself not notable and the article should be deleted. Iljhgtn (talk) 15:52, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Journalism, England, and United States of America. Shellwood (talk) 16:12, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Some reviews of his books [2], [3], an article in Variety [4]. Oaktree b (talk) 17:59, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Source 10 is also a book review, this would likely pass AUTHOR with at least three book reviews in RS. Oaktree b (talk) 18:00, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What do you think of the WP:DENY rationale for deletion? I think it is likely that this person paid to have their article created, or did it themselves with a sock account. Either way, it has a rich history of editing by blocked sock accounts. Iljhgtn (talk) 21:55, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Meets WP:DIRECTOR/WP:CREATIVE as director/writer of a notable film, at least. -Mushy Yank. 18:05, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Which of the criteria from those qualifies here? Iljhgtn (talk) 02:07, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
...#3, most evidently. Bilton’s Fake Famous has received a lot of critical attention. Just check. WP: AUTHOR also applies. He is a very clearly notable writer and filmmaker. -Mushy Yank. 08:32, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What are your thoughts on WP:DENY given the rich history of editing by socks and the fact that this article was created by a sock itself? I say delete and it could maybe then be recreated separately on that basis alone. Iljhgtn (talk) 13:17, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Eren Legend (bodybuilder)

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

Previously soft-deleted for lack of notability. I doubt the topic has since become notable. Janhrach (talk) 13:39, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Sportspeople, Bodybuilding, and Canada. Janhrach (talk) 13:39, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Does not appear to have valid secondary sourcing to prove WP:GNG. There's just a slight mention of him in the CBC article which is the only quality source I can consider. Source #4 is dead. m a MANÍ^{1990(talk | contribs)} 23:26, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Eren Legend meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines due to his recognized impact in the bodybuilding community. He has been featured in reputable fitness magazines and websites, with coverage from independent sources discussing his achievements and training insights. His involvement in bodybuilding competitions and contributions to fitness culture further support his notability. Deleting the article would remove a relevant figure from the fitness community, and the existing sources substantiate his presence in the field. Therefore, I believe the article should be kept at least a Biography stubs. Lukadon (talk) 03:14, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lewis Alexander

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

Hijacked redirect. Current subject does not meet WP:GNG. If kept, should be moved to Lewis Alexander (actor) and the redirect turned into a dab. But I can't find enough in-depth coverage to show they meet GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:49, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:49, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose There are people less notable than him who have articles. So, I don't see why it should be deleted and I don't think it needs to be moved since the name isn't taken by someone else. Spectritus (talk) 12:52, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We discuss articles and if they should be included according to Wikipedia's various policies and guidelines. Your reply is unrelated to any of those, so please consider making a policy-based argument. Geschichte (talk) 14:57, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:56, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:32, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete an extra who does not seem to have ever been credited, cannot find anything about his career or even an obituary, therefore does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NACTOR. Orange sticker (talk) 10:13, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Can't find any solid sources that actually talk about Lewis Alexander as a person or actor. Right now, this looks more like a name on a list than a subject with encyclopedic value. Pridemanty (talk) 12:13, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
restore redirect to Lewis Grandison Alexander. The actor is non notable, but the poet probably is. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:58, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
How does appearing in major productions not make him notable? Also, there are people less notable than him who have an article. Spectritus (talk) 15:59, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Donald Pelmear

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

No evidence of notability found. Played in notable series like Dr Who, but only a minor role. He is just a name appearing in lists of actors, but doesn't get further attention in books[5]. No news sources paid significant attention to his death[6]. General Google results are wiki's and fora, no indepth reliable sources there either[7]. Fram (talk) 09:30, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are people less notable than him who have an article. So, I don't see why this article should be deleted. And besides, it can be improved over time. Spectritus (talk) 9:34, 4 April 2025 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and England. Fram (talk) 09:30, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

His role in The Time Warrior is significant, not minor. Merge into a not-yet existing cast section of that serial. Thanks. (https://www.radiotimes.com/tv/sci-fi/doctor-who-guide/the-time-warrior/) -Mushy Yank. 19:06, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

He played in 4 of the 26 episodes of one season of this long-running series. It's a significant role in that one story arc, it is a minor role in Doctor Who. Fram (talk) 19:12, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, sure, it's also less important in the universal history of fiction than Rhett Butler and Darth Vader, which in turn are less important than Odyssseus and Don Quixote, etc, but that's not really the point.... It's a significant [not minor] role in a notable production and that's why I suggest to Redirect the page there. If other significant ro|es in notable productions are identified, the Redirect can be undone and the page expanded back into a proper article. Thank you. -Mushy Yank. 19:20, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose As I said before, there are people less notable than him who have an article. So, there's no reason to delete this one. Spectritus (talk) 8:54, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

Comment He also appeared in many roles on stage. I'll try to add info about that, and sources from digitised newspapers. RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:11, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Much appreciated. Spectritus (talk) 16:01, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mojo Hand (talk) 14:16, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thapaswini Poonacha

AfDs for this article:

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

Declined G4. Non-notable actress. This version of the article is drastically different from the previous version which was deleted in 2022. Although it's still in very poor shape, and would need to be completely rewritten if kept. Fails WP:NACTOR. CycloneYoris ^talk! 21:57, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and India. CycloneYoris ^talk! 21:57, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Women, Food and drink, and Karnataka. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:37, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Response to AfD Discussion: Thapaswini Poonacha

I oppose the deletion of this article on the grounds that Thapaswini Poonacha meets Wikipedia’s notability criteria for actors (WP:NACTOR) and has received significant coverage in multiple independent, reliable sources.

1. Notability as an Actress

Thapaswini Poonacha has been featured in multiple Kannada films, including:

Hari Kathe Alla Giri Kathe (2022) – Available on JioCinema

Gajarama (2025) – Upcoming release on February 7, 2025

Mr. Jack – Upcoming, co-starring Guru Nandan

Rukmini Vasantha – Upcoming, co-starring Shree Mahadev

She has received media attention for her performances and won the Chittara Promising Star Award, which is a notable recognition in the Kannada film industry.

2. Significant Media Coverage

Multiple independent and reliable sources have covered her career and achievements, demonstrating significant coverage beyond passing mentions:

Times of India:

"I do my research before signing a film"

"Not about numbers, want to do memorable movies"

"Roles have to make my soul happy"

The New Indian Express:

"I have no interest in chasing attention"

Kannada Prabha:

"Thapaswini Poonacha: I have no interest in chasing attention"

Hindustan Times Kannada:

"Thapaswini Poonacha in Christmas photoshoot"

These sources demonstrate that Thapaswini Poonacha is consistently covered in reputable media, indicating her notability as an actress and public figure.

3. Business and Coffee Industry Recognition

In addition to her acting career, she is a certified coffee cup tester and runs a coffee business in Coorg. This has been discussed in interviews and media coverage, adding to her notability beyond acting.

4. Conclusion

Thapaswini Poonacha meets WP:NACTOR by virtue of:

✅ Multiple roles in notable Kannada films

✅ Award recognition (Chittara Promising Star Award)

✅ Significant, independent media coverage

✅ Additional recognition in the coffee industry

Given the multiple reliable sources and her growing career in Kannada cinema, deletion is not justified. If improvements are needed, I encourage a rewrite instead of deletion. Akashmdp (talk) 16:37, 3 April 2025 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Example (talk • contribs) appears to have a close connection with the subject of the article being discussed. [reply]

Agree on multiple roles in notable Kannada films, which is enough for a standalone page, but would you happen to have a source for the award, by any chance? -Mushy Yank. 17:40, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Seen the Youtube video. Added it. A better source might be needed for that, but as notability does not depend on that point (but on her 2 roles), not urgent. Advising you no to repeat the same things nor add long walls of text here or on the page. -Mushy Yank. 18:20, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Did you ask AI to ask if the article should be deleted or not? That might explain why Kannada industry became coffee industry. DareshMohan (talk) 18:06, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: 2 significant roles in (2) notable films (the second has no page yet but at least 3 bylined reviews [see page]) have her meet the requirements for WP:NACTRESS. I have cleaned up the page. -Mushy Yank. 17:20, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Thapaswini Poonacha meets WP:NACTRESS by having significant roles in two notable films:

Hari Kathe Alla Giri Kathe (2022) – Recognized and covered in mainstream Kannada media.

Gajarama (2025) – While the film does not yet have its own Wikipedia page, it has received at least three bylined reviews from reliable sources.

Additionally, she has been profiled in multiple independent, reliable sources, including:

Times of India (article)

New Indian Express (article)

Kannada Prabha (article)

Hindustan Times Kannada (article)

Her acting career and coffee business have been independently covered, reinforcing her notability beyond just press releases or promotional content. The page has been cleaned up to meet Wikipedia’s neutrality and sourcing guidelines.

Thus, per WP:GNG and WP:NACTRESS, the article should be kept. Akashmdp (talk) 18:00, 3 April 2025 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Example (talk • contribs) appears to have a close connection with the subject of the article being discussed. [reply]
The Kannada Prabha piece is more interview. The Vinay Lokesh piece is also interview. These aren't nearly enough, IMHO. I don't see a single presented source which isn't routine entertainment news, mostly quotes. No direct detailing at all. To Akashmdp, repeating your bullet points over and over doesn't make your argument any stronger. You may be convinced, but you need to convince the other editors in this discussion. BusterD (talk) 18:14, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete User:Akashmdp is the page creator AND a paid contributor to this page. As for the sources already applied on the page, cite #2 (Asianet Suvarna News) admits it's a Kannada translation of The Times of India link (cite #1). Both consist entirely of identical quotes from the subject. Interviews do not count towards GNG. The two movie reviews are both (parenthetical) bare mentions, but do confirm the single role. Cite #5 is also an interview with a few bits of routine industry news. The photoshoot linked above is five pics of her in same outfit next to quotes from the actress. If this is all an avowed digital marketing professional with 7+ years of experience in the industry can bring, it's not very impressive to me. BusterD (talk) 17:56, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For full disclosure, I was the administrator who declined the speedy deletion tag earlier. BusterD (talk) 17:59, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ – Meets WP:NACTRESS and WP:GNG.
I would like to address the concerns raised by User:BusterD regarding notability and sources.
Significant Roles in Multiple Notable Films
Hari Kathe Alla Giri Kathe (2022) – A commercially released Kannada film with media coverage.

Gajarama (2025) – Upcoming film, already receiving pre-release coverage.

Mr. Jack & Rukmini Vasantha – Both announced, with media mentions. Under WP:NACTRESS, an actor needs two significant roles in notable films, which she meets.

Coverage in Reliable, Independent Sources
Times of India: Multiple interviews and feature stories.

New Indian Express: Independent reporting on her career.

Hindustan Times (Kannada): Coverage of her work.

Kannada Prabha: Career analysis and industry perspectives. Response to the Source Criticism:

The Times of India article is a primary source, but it is still independent and features her career insights.

The Asianet Suvarna News article may translate TOI but does not invalidate other sources.

Movie reviews confirm her roles, fulfilling minimum WP:NACTRESS requirements.

The New Indian Express piece is not just an interview; it provides analysis of her trajectory.

Photoshoot coverage, while not the strongest evidence, still indicates media attention.

Regarding Paid Editing Allegations
While User:Akashmdp may have created the page, the subject’s notability stands independently.

Wikipedia has a system for COI disclosures, but that does not automatically invalidate an article’s merits.

Even if a paid editor initiated the page, the subject’s career must be evaluated separately from who added the content.

Conclusion
Thapaswini Poonacha meets both WP:GNG and WP:NACTRESS based on her coverage and career milestones.

The article has been cleaned up to remove promotional tone and improve sourcing.

If further citations or refinements are needed, that can be worked on, but outright deletion is unnecessary.
Thus, the article should be kept. Akashmdp (talk) 18:12, 3 April 2025 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Example (talk • contribs) appears to have a close connection with the subject of the article being discussed. [reply]
Now you're screaming. You have made your argument. Let others speak. Mushy Yank can be helpful here. Consult with them. BusterD (talk) 18:16, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This article has significantly changed since its AfD nomination. -Mushy Yank. 20:01, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Passes Wp:GNG and Wp:NACTRESS. Multiple significant roles in notable movies and multiple significant coverage in WP:RS, both are available. Zuck28 (talk) 01:34, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep: As per above discussion and my search on the subject find this: [8], [9], [10] B-Factor (talk) 12:41, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak Keep~~

Thank you, B-Factor, for your input. The references you provided—Times of India, Cinema Express, and The New Indian Express—are credible sources that establish Thapaswini Poonacha’s notability as an actress in Kannada cinema.

These sources provide coverage of her career, film roles, and interviews, which meet Wikipedia’s General Notability Guidelines (GNG). Additionally, her role in upcoming films like Gajarama shows ongoing relevance.

I believe the page should be retained, but I am open to improving it by adding more citations or restructuring content for better compliance with Wikipedia standards.

Looking forward to further discussion. Akashmdp (talk) 17:47, 4 April 2025 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Example (talk • contribs) appears to have a close connection with the subject of the article being discussed. [reply]
@Akashmdp Is your !vote Keep or Weak Keep? (You don't need to repeat identical arguments over and over, even if it's to thank someone -we understood your point, I guess-, which is perfectly fine, though) Inviting you to "remove" your "Weak Keep" above (with ~~strikethrough~~) (So that it appears ~~Weak Keep~~) if your !vote (the only thing that should be bolded (theorically :D) in a !vote) is indeed Keep. And Gajarama is NOT an upcoming film, mind you. It was released in February and has received multiple reviews in reliable media outlets, this being one of the main arguments (with her other significant role) in favour of retention of the page. -Mushy Yank. 18:53, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, thank you for your kind suggestion. Yes, I was confused. Gajarams is released. I am sorry for that. Should I update that in the page? Also, there is no option to remove keep with strike. Should I send new reply regarding that? Akashmdp (talk) 15:55, 6 April 2025 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Example (talk • contribs) appears to have a close connection with the subject of the article being discussed. [reply]

It’s OK, done it for you. The film is clearly indicated as released in the article so there’s no problem. -Mushy Yank. 17:57, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much. If you don’t mind, can you tell me what should I do next? Is the article live? Nomination header is still there. Akashmdp (talk) 18:26, 6 April 2025 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Example (talk • contribs) appears to have a close connection with the subject of the article being discussed. [reply]

Just be patient :D. The discussion will take place until April 9 at least. The nomination tag will remain until the discussion is closed and a consensus (to retain/delete/redirect/draftify) is clear. Nothing to do in particular here; feel free to list new sources on the talk page if you find some and think they are useful to expand the page. Best, -Mushy Yank. 18:58, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In the meantime, if you wish and can, you could upload a quality photograph of this actress if you can find one that corresponds to the guidelines explained in Wikipedia:Images. Be particularly mindful of copyright and legal issues if you can find one. Please note that the potential insertion of an image is totally unrelated to notability questions and that it will not change a thing in the current discussion. -Mushy Yank. 19:09, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. How long does it take to index on google? Akashmdp (talk) 08:08, 9 April 2025 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Example (talk • contribs) appears to have a close connection with the subject of the article being discussed. [reply]

From their frequent use of the phrase, it appears Akashmdp gets paid when the page indexes. This was not written by an LLM, at least. BusterD (talk) 18:32, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes WP:NACTRESS who has worked as female lead in two films that have been released. Page needs to be improved though with secondary independent reliable sources. Sources with interviews are not independent of the subject. RangersRus (talk) 15:16, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: at the suggestion of another editor, I ran GPTZero on User:Akashmdp's extended posts in this discussion. They each came up 100% LLM created. BusterD (talk) 18:19, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I had used LLM to improvise my article since my english is not upto the par. So much allegations on me, I am the friend of Thapaswini, I am marketer by profession but doesn’t mean I am charging Thapaswini. I can provide any proof that she is my friend. I am solely doing this for a good will. If you insist me to add COI paid or something, I really don’t mind until it doesn’t affect our article. And I still stand on my stance that I am not being paid. In future I might write an article which will be paid I hope, that time I would definitely mention it. And this is my first article and I am still a noob. I would be expecting you people help rather than defending it. @Mushy Yank@BusterD please check this out.

Thank you Akashmdp (talk) 06:34, 10 April 2025 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Example (talk • contribs) appears to have a close connection with the subject of the article being discussed. [reply]
Delete - The "two" significant roles argument is good as long as there is significant coverage on the subject themself. Simply having sources verifying a role is not enough. The sourcing here is no better than it was in the first two deletion discussions (mentions, NEWSORGINDIA, or otherwise unreliable). Apparently there are two other films they are involved in. Maybe when there is more coverage of them there will be more coverage of this subject. Until then, it is a case of TOOSOON. --CNMall41 (talk) 22:11, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Aside from the LLVM generated content, the views of experienced editors are split between keeping and deleting. Another week getting views of other editors is needed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:44, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per above. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 14:31, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unsure - whilst it is true she’s been an actor in two films, it’s not really clear that these are notable even in the context of Indian cinema where it appears more than 100 Kannada language films are released per year. It is true there are reviews from Indian newspapers, but these suggest that the critical reviews were not good. It seems plausible to me that Indian actors might only be considered notable if they’ve been in movies that are particularly notable. The use of LLM and closeness to the subject strongly suggests that the !keep votes above are clouding the issue. JMWt (talk) 15:27, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: passes WP:NACTOR (barely, but still...). The subject also passes WP:GNG. The sourcing appears good - at least two of them are WP:RS, and the coverage is significant enough to warrant an article. I agree that the page needs to be improved, though.--DesiMoore (talk) 15:34, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sources do not necessary mean significant coverage. Which references show the person meets WP:BASIC as that is still a requirement given the WP:NACTOR guideline says " meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included."--CNMall41 (talk) 16:13, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify or Delete until the release of her next film Mr. Jack per WP:TOO EARLY. Given that the film was already shooting in January 2025, a release could happen in 2025. Regarding COI, I or any other editor can blank the draft and rewrite it. The issue I have with keeping the article is that what if her next film doesn't release, will she be notable? I had trouble sourcing her second unreleased film based on English sources [11]. DareshMohan (talk) 16:40, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Aditi Saigal

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

This is a case of Wp:TOOSOON. Just one film as acting career and one ep for that she received some press coverage. Other than that she is daughter of singer and actor parents but notability is not inherited. Fails wp:NACTOR and Wp:NMUSIC as well. Zuck28 (talk) 11:01, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Artists, Women, Film, Music, India, Delhi, and Wales. Zuck28 (talk) 11:01, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Netherzone (talk) 02:55, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per WP:FORBES, Forbes is generally considered a reliable source and can see Forbes covering profile for this person in their article here ^[1] Circular Karma (talk) 14:06, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ https://www.forbesindia.com/article/30-under-30-2024/aditi-saigal-aka-dot-winning-with-words-and-melody/91751/1

Not all individuals featured in Forbes necessarily meet the eligibility threshold for a standalone Wikipedia article.

The subject must first satisfy the notability criteria outlined in Wikipedia's WP:Notability guidelines as a prerequisite for inclusion.

Zuck28 (talk) 14:23, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Notability is not established per WP:NACTOR, WP:MUSICBIO nor WP:GNG. The sourcing consists of standard PR type promo that one would see for any emerging actor with a press agent, including Forbes, which is not significant coverage, it's simply a photo of her with a caption mentioning her name, thus trivial. The Forbes "profile" link above is more standard PR ~~written by "Forbes Staff", (it does not even have a by-line)~~. I agree with the nom that this is a case of WP:TOOSOON. Perhaps in a few more years this emerging actor will become notable, but at this time, one acting role, Spotify "fans" and famous parents is not enough. Netherzone (talk) 15:46, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It does have a byline and in my view counts as one piece of significant reliable sources coverage. Another reliable bylined piece in the Hindu here, another bylined piece here, leaning Keep for WP:GNG rather than WP:NACTOR imvAtlantic306 (talk) 20:50, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: One film is not sufficient to pass WP:NACTOR. Need at-least three feature films/web series/TV to comply WP:ACTOR. Forbes 30 Under 30 is paid. Bakhtar40 (talk) 18:08, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
General comment: Two is enough. Guideline says: "multiple" not "several". -Mushy Yank. 14:35, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: coverage has her meet WP:GNG. At worst a redirect to The_Archies_(film)#Cast is totally warranted so opposed to deletion. -Mushy Yank. 14:38, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails to meet WP:NACTRESS. RangersRus (talk) 18:44, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:02, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lance Kramer

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

Unsourced biography from 2006. Could not find SIGCOV about him. Natg 19 (talk) 23:02, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, and Comics and animation. Natg 19 (talk) 23:02, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 23:02, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Some coverage for someone with a similar name [12], I don't know if it's this person though. Oaktree b (talk) 23:58, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Don't think it is the same person. IMDB (not RS, I know) has several Lance Kramers: [13][14] Natg 19 (talk) 01:37, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Doesn't follow WP:GNG and the lack of sources seems like grounds for deletion. Cottagechez (talk) 00:03, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, California, and North Dakota. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:40, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm yet undecided. He directed a number of episodes, so there should be sources. Most of the article was written by IP editors, but I reached out to Jdb00. Bearian (talk) 00:08, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He meets WP:CREATIVE#3, as having played a major role (directing) in the creation of a notable work The Simpsons, which has been the subject of multiple, independent reviews. I have found one article about him, from 2000, and several reviews of two short animated films of his shown in animation festivals in the early 1990s. Otherwise, I have found sources that confirm his role as director in the episodes of the Simpsons. I think that is enough to satisfy WP:CREATIVE#3, as they provide verification of his role. (This person is not the same as the Lance Kramer who with his brother Brandon Kramer has made The First Step and Holding Liat - that Lance Kramer will probably be notable too.) RebeccaGreen (talk) 10:42, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that he means CREATIVE#3 as Kramer is not the "creator" of the Simpsons - that would be Matt Groening. And CREATIVE#3 mentions (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series). However, the 3 articles mentioned may meet WP:BASIC. Can you put links to the articles here? Natg 19 (talk) 21:33, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CREATIVE includes WP:DIRECTOR and other creative professions - it does not mean just the original creator of a series. The wording you quote is about what form coverage of "the significant or well-known work or collective body of work" can take: the work "must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews, or of an independent and notable work, for example ...". Lance Kramer directed 25 episodes of The Simpsons - it seems to me that he "played a major role in co-creating" it. The sources are in the article. RebeccaGreen (talk) 11:25, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I still disagree with you, as directing 25 episodes is very minor, out of the 783 (and growing) number of The Simpsons episodes. That is less than 5%. Will review the sources later on. Natg 19 (talk) 18:33, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:07, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Many people work on these TV shows, but most do not have their own stand alone article. Does not look notable and sourcing is not that great. Ramos1990 (talk) 04:28, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Reminder that we don't much care about the sourcing in the article, so much as we care about the total possible sourcing available.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 03:26, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: My sources above were not helpful. I don't see notability... Oaktree b (talk) 15:00, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletions

Comment on the talk pages of the articles, not here.