Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Actors and filmmakers

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Shortcut
Deletion Sorting
Project

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:
  1. Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
  2. You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|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.


Purge page cache watch
Scan for actor AfDs

 Scan for filmmaker AfDs


Actors and filmmakers

[edit]

Royalnasty

[edit]
Royalnasty (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. Sources in article are not WP:RS as they are sponsored or featured posts and they are written possible by a single individual. See these[1][2] and here[3][4] are all promotional efforts. Ednabrenze (talk) 13:23, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Harish Kumar Sejekan

[edit]
Harish Kumar Sejekan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not yet notable per WP:ARTIST, WP:BIO or WP:GNG. A WP:BEFORE search for his name in English and Kannada turns up no significant coverage in reliable sources. He's mentioned only in passing as a curator in the sources cited, with nothing about his contributions being "acknowledged" as described. Unsourced claims about his early and personal life, the posed photo used and article creator's edit history all suggest a conflict of interest. Wikishovel (talk) 07:32, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Source assessment table prepared by User:WomenArtistUpdates
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
Yes Yes No passing mention of collaboration ✘ No
Yes Yes No passing mention of role as curator ✘ No
Yes Yes No passing mention ✘ 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}}.
Just came to say that, but also that I'm happy to let this AfD run if participants so wish, to establish a 'stickier' deletion than G5. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:43, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Continuing the debate suits me fine, thanks DG. Many thanks also to User:WomenArtistUpdates for the source analysis. Wikishovel (talk) 09:59, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Santosh Ram

[edit]
Santosh Ram (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Most of the sources fail WP:SIGCOV, and/or are press releases. This article is likely written by someone with a WP:COI, and it has been spammed crosswiki and across SEO farms. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 09:29, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mu Tunç

[edit]
Mu Tunç (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. WP:REFBOMB and violation of WP:COI. All of the sources are promotional. Independent and reliable sources are needed for passing GNG. Kadı Message 21:47, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Özdemir, Gülçin, Berceste (2019) Türkiye'de Bağımsız Sinemaya Dair Tartışmalar Istanbul. Nobel Bilimsel Eserler ISBN 6056928764 may be acceptable, but only this source is not adequate for keeping this article too. Kadı Message 21:55, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The nomination misrepresents the sources and appears to be the continuation of a personal content dispute related to BLP issues, which is specifically not a valid reason for deletion (see WP:BLPDELETE). AfD is not the appropriate venue for resolving disagreements about content.
The claim that “all sources are promotional” is factually incorrect. The subject is covered by multiple independent, reliable, secondary sources, including:
Academic publication: Özdemir & Berceste (2019), Türkiye’de Bağımsız Sinemaya Dair Tartışmalar, Nobel Bilimsel Eserler, ISBN 6056928764
(Academic sources by definition are NOT promotional and fully meet WP:RS.)
National media profiles and interviews
Film festival coverage
Cultural journalism
Independent industry commentary
These satisfy WP:GNG through significant, independent coverage over multiple years.
The article clearly meets the notability standards for creative professionals (WP:GNG, WP:NART, WP:BIO).
Deletion is not justified. Andreasfromparis (talk) 07:07, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, the tone and escalation of this nomination raise concerns related to Wikipedia’s guideline “Please Do Not Bite the Newcomers.”
The nomination and subsequent comments appear unnecessarily adversarial, and the use of AfD in the immediate aftermath of a BLP dispute risks discouraging constructive participation rather than resolving content concerns through normal editorial processes.
The article meets notability standards, has independent coverage, and can be improved rather than deleted.
Deletion is not appropriate. Andreasfromparis (talk) 07:14, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In addition to the points above, I would like to clarify that the article currently contains 58 independent, reliable references, including:
Major international media outlets from all around the world (Vogue US, VICE, I-D, Die Welt)
US cultural diplomacy sources (OneBeat / U.S. Cultural Department)
British, French, Australian, German, and Turkish national publications
Festival coverage across Europe and the U.S.
Cultural journalism, film criticism, and industry reporting
Academic coverage:
Türkiye’de Bağımsız Sinemaya Dair Tartışmalar, Nobel Bilimsel Eserler, ISBN 6056928764
These sources clearly fulfill the requirements of WP:GNG and WP:NART, which require significant, independent, reliable coverage. Academic sources alone meet WP:RS; combined with dozens of international media sources, the subject’s notability is not in question.
The suggestion that “all sources are promotional” does not align with the actual references listed on the page, which come overwhelmingly from independent and reputable outlets worldwide.
Given the breadth and depth of coverage across multiple countries and independent organizations, the article clearly meets Wikipedia’s notability standards and should be retained. Andreasfromparis (talk) 07:30, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep he has an IMDB page: [[5]] also there is this write up: Mu Tunç’s Cinematic Ode to Istanbul’s Punk History [[6]] and this one: 1990’lar İstanbulunda punk ve “Arada”: Mu Tunç [[7]]

and this one: Underground unter Erdogan [[8]] Agnieszka653 (talk) 21:40, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Agnieszka653, IMDB is not a reliable source, and the other links that you have provided are not independent sources; those are interviews with Tunç. Kadı Message 22:53, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Hale

[edit]
Christopher Hale (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unclear notability. Article seems like a CV perhaps written by those with a close connection to the subject. Article appears to have been created by the subject himself: User:Chrishale53 ~Darth StabroTalk • Contribs 04:53, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Dry

[edit]
Tim Dry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I am a little surprised that I have had to bring this to AfD (although redirect to Tik and Tok might be fine but I am checking their notability next) because this page lists numerous accomplishments but when I try to check them out I can't find them or they are documented with self-published sources. In addition the article was created by what appears to be a COI account (NOIR Ltd.) and has been consistently updated by the subject of the article himself. Sources I have found include this book mention, this shorter mention in a magazine, and here in a list of mimes in star wars. Moritoriko (talk) 05:50, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Winterhalder

[edit]
Edward Winterhalder (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Completing nomination for IP user. Their argument for deletion is:

Ex biker who's written some books and consulted on some TV shows about being a biker.
Most of the sources are user generated sites like IMDB or sites linked directly to the subject. The independent sources that mention him are either passing mentions or promotional content.
I don't think any of this gives him enough notability for a wiki page. Here2rewrite (talk) 16:27, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1. The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors; Winterhalder was a former high-ranking world leader of the Bandidos motorcycle club. He was involved in the Quebec Biker War to the extent he was notably subject to legal proceedings in Canada to prevent him from entering the country. 2. The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews, or of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series); He documented his career in the Bandidos and his account of the Quebec Biker War in his autobiographical books The Assimilation and Searching for My Identity Volumes 1 and 2 providing a unique first hand view of these events, which is currently in development for TV. Winterhalder also Passes WP:GNG given above and his wide range of other books and TV projects and interviews — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2025-35222-97 (talk) 21:54, 20 November 2025 (UTC) — 2025-35222-97 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Michael Huang (animator)

[edit]
Michael Huang (animator) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Most of the coverage seems to be about BFDI and I don't think it passes GNG. The non-BFDI related information is trivial and doesn't establish notability much, though I might be wrong on this. I think this should be redirected to Battle for Dream Island unless more coverage is found/ Z E T A3 02:32, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wait for more coverage on Huang Wikiman2230 (talk) 02:33, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If we have to wait then I say it's WP:TOOSOON. Jurta talk/contribs 12:59, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ty :3 Wikiman2230 (talk) 02:54, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draft/Weak keep: The argument isn't a really good excuse though I see your reasoning. Subject rarely passes WP:SIGCOV with only one source significantly talking about Michael himself in detail, and I notice a couple sources having no correlation to Michael himself in detail or in general, or blatantly talking about The Scale of the Universe with his brother, failing WP:NRV. I see potential of a standalone article rather than a full deletion but for now, this is gonna need more reputable sources about Michael in detail. ConeKota (talk) 02:52, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect We can't just have non-notable articles in hopes that they will eventually become notable. He's not individually notable from the article yet. Redirect to Battle for Dream Island. WiinterU 03:14, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, as a fan of BFDI Michael doesnt seem to be very notable individually(only known for 2 things and most of the coverage is about those 2 works), especially that its not merged with cary Animalsrule2024 (talk) 03:39, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't a valid argument to be honest. ConeKota (talk) 04:25, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think the points are valid. I don't see how the Cary draft can avoid being near-identical to this article. There are a couple of things that set Cary apart from Michael (Abacaba[1][2][3] and 10003 Caryhuang), but not much that would set Michael apart from Cary. Both are best known for what they've worked on together, so it would make more sense to have just one article that's about both of them. If each twin gets a separate article, it may be difficult for us to agree on redirect targets for Huang twins, Huang brothers and Cary and Michael Huang. – MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 12:31, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
exactly Animalsrule2024 (talk) 16:06, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes but theres not many sources and Cary is more notable so its good to as well either change the page or redirect Animalsrule2024 (talk) 16:06, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I can’t even do anything nowadays without someone judging me for it 💔✌️ Wikiman2230 (talk) 23:07, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
really should stop taking these personally; nobody is judging you specifically, they're judging the article grapesurgeon (talk) 14:09, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody is judging you. They're judging the article for notability. --not-cheesewhisk3rs ≽^•⩊•^≼ ∫ (pester) 12:15, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I can't copy content from another draft nowadays without its author judging me for it. – MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 14:25, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think you should've given attribution in the edit summary at least because Wikipedia is CC-BY-SA 4.0. But yeah, the material Wikiman wrote is under a free license, as is all other text on Wikipedia. Z E T AC 17:02, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I tried, but the link in my edit summary is red because I forgot that the title had a disambiguator. – MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 20:47, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
its plagiarism 🤦 Wikiman2230 (talk) 00:05, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
When you publish your work on Wikipedia, you agree to release them under CC BY-SA 4.0, which allows free copying as long as attribution is given. MrPersonHumanGuy gave attribution as required. Ca talk to me! 12:26, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Man I feel like this is gon get deleted 😔 Wikiman2230 (talk) 03:43, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I can see this being a draft aswell, but most likely a redirect, you could copy the source before it is to potentially be reformed into a redirect into a new draft and improve upon there! ConeKota (talk) 04:17, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea Wikiman2230 (talk) 15:25, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Battle for Dream Island or draftify and move protect per Star Mississippi. Unfortunately this is what some people were worried about once this topic became notable, the proliferation of spinoff articles about non-notable topics. The sources here do not establish the notability of Michael Huang. Katzrockso (talk) 06:59, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Dvorsky, George. "Beautiful Visualization Charts History's Best Chess Players". Gizmodo. Retrieved 2022-01-31.
  2. ^ "This video captures 15 years of meme trends in 10 minutes". The Daily Dot. 2019-04-19. Retrieved 2022-01-31.
  3. ^ "Is Coronavirus Spreading Faster Than SARS, Ebola, and Swine Flu?". Snopes.com. Retrieved 2022-01-30.
  4. ^ Dvorsky, George. "Beautiful Visualization Charts History's Best Chess Players". Gizmodo. Retrieved 2022-01-31.
  5. ^ "This video captures 15 years of meme trends in 10 minutes". The Daily Dot. 2019-04-19. Retrieved 2022-01-31.
  6. ^ "Is Coronavirus Spreading Faster Than SARS, Ebola, and Swine Flu?". Snopes.com. Retrieved 2022-01-30.

Clay Greenbush

[edit]
Clay Greenbush (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:BEFORE resulted in nothing but IMDB and similar WP:USERGEN sources. His notability appears rely on that of his family's – it appears he has only had mostly supporting roles, none of which are supported with significant coverage. Nil🥝 02:56, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Solo Avital

[edit]
Solo Avital (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article about a filmmaker, not properly sourced as having any strong claim to passing WP:CREATIVE. This has existed for almost an entire decade, and spent most of that time completely unreferenced (and thus never should have survived this long) until having just one reference added to it only in August of this year. Even that one reference isn't really about him, however, but just briefly namechecks him in the process of being about a viral video -- so it would just make him a WP:BLP1E, not a person who had passed WP:GNG on substantive coverage and analysis about him and his work, if we took it as his principal notability claim.
But otherwise, this is strictly on the level of "person who did stuff", with the only other attempt at a notability claim being a list of awards from minor regional or local film festivals that are not highly meganotable enough to confer an automatic free pass over WP:NFILM without reliable sourcing to support them.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to be the subject of a lot more GNG-worthy media coverage than this. Bearcat (talk) 13:27, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The citations presented are OK and will pass notability guidelines. In particular the articles in BBC, Jerusalem post, The Guardian and Jerusalem post are the best ones. Yolandagonzales (talk) 16:31, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Most of those are not even in the article at all, and thus have not been "presented" — and all of them are covering him strictly in the context of the same single viral video, and thus have failed to demonstrate that he would pass WP:BLP1E. Bearcat (talk) 02:58, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kontawa

[edit]
Kontawa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Bringing this here for discussion as nearly all of the edits are from blocked editors of one stripe or another. The promotional tone can be cleaned up, but I see no evidence of Said meeting notability as a musician or influencer. Star Mississippi 00:07, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The citations presented are OK.Yolandagonzales (talk) 16:39, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cliff Divine

[edit]
Cliff Divine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet WP:BIO. Almost all of the sources serve just to document specific pieces of information and don't mention Mr. Divine at all or only briefly. Most of the personal information about him is not sourced at all, or only a source that is associated with him(like his company website). The information about his language skills is sourced to the people who educated him- just documentation that provides no information(as one example)

It is entirely possible that the Reconnect organization/movement he founded is notable, or even his films(like the one selected by film festivals that merit articles). But when the unsourced information and information about his movement is stripped out, not much is left other than the fact he hangs out with celebrities who support his movement, but notability is not inherited by association(and, again, would be more relevant to his movement than him personally). Some sources are interviews and thus not independent.

This draft was created by an account by the name Cdlosangeles; the Cd strongly implies they are Mr. Divine themselves. They have denied this, but given what they wrote and their comments(most of which are AI written), I still believe it may be. 331dot (talk) 19:15, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Businesspeople, Film, Entertainment, and United States of America. 331dot (talk) 19:15, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Evidence of Reliable Independent Coverage
    Below is a selection of independent secondary sources with significant coverage of Cliff Divine or his work. This list includes more than thirty television news segments across major US networks where he is clearly identified on air.
    Television Coverage (Independent Broadcast Sources)
    ABC7 News San Francisco
    ABC Action News Florida
    ABC News Orlando
    CBS Orlando
    CBS Pittsburgh
    NBC Sioux Falls
    NBC Orlando
    KUTV 2 Utah
    KHON2 Hawaii
    KTVB 7 Boise
    Q2 News Montana
    WKMG News 6 Orlando
    KTVA Alaska
    WESH 2 Orlando
    And many others
    These are full broadcast news reports featuring him as the central on-screen subject.
    Print and Online Coverage (Independent Secondary Sources)
    Orlando Sentinel
    Local and regional US newspapers
    International press outlets
    Film festival programs and award announcements
    These collectively satisfy WP:BIO and WP:GNG.
    A complete link to the full collection of thirty plus news segments was provided above and shows verified, on-air identification of the subject by major network journalists. Cdlosangeles (talk) 20:20, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    His name being mentioned on air doesn't make him notable. I reiterate- his movement/organization may be notable, but not him personally. I suggest that you write about his organization instead. 331dot (talk) 20:48, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: France and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:04, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for reviewing the article. I would like to clarify several points, because some of the comments above include assumptions that do not match the facts.
1. Cliff Divine and Andrew Cliff Tisba are the same person.
This can be verified through interviews, festival materials, and nonprofit records. Since both names refer to the same individual, all references to him under either name are valid for establishing notability. Several news pieces refer to him as Cliff Divine while others refer to him by his birth name, and they all point to the same person.
2. The article includes many independent reliable secondary sources that focus directly on Mr. Divine.
There is coverage from ABC, CBS, NBC, FOX, Orlando Sentinel, KHON2, KTVB, KUTV, Q2 Billings, and international outlets. These are not small mentions. They are full news stories where he appears as the central subject. Film festivals and award committees have also published coverage that includes him in a principal role.
3. A link has been provided that contains more than thirty television news segments from major networks where Cliff Divine is clearly identified by name on air.
These are verified broadcasts, publicly aired, and independent of him. This constitutes significant coverage by reliable independent sources under WP:BIO.
4. The majority of the sources are fully independent journalism.
These materials come from established newsrooms that operate with editorial oversight. They are not self published and not produced or controlled by the subject. They satisfy the independence and reliability standards required for a biographical article.
5. Notability is supported by coverage of his acting awards and his public work.
He has been recognized at film festivals, appears in national and international news stories, and is repeatedly covered for his multistate public initiative. This meets the definition of significant coverage from multiple independent secondary sources.
6. For clarity, I am not Cliff Divine, the subject of the article.
I am commenting here solely to correct factual inaccuracies. Wikipedia asks participants to avoid personal speculation about editors. The discussion should remain focused on the article content and the sources, not on assumptions about who may be editing.
7. Regarding @331dot
I want to acknowledge that @331dot has been helpful in pointing out technical copyright issues related to images. I am working on those with Commons. However, it feels disproportionate that after helping remove all images I spent hours organizing, there is now also a push from him/her to delete the entire article I spent months building with independent sources. I am raising this only to highlight how important it is to keep the focus on policy and content rather than escalating toward removing the whole subject. The notability question should be evaluated strictly based on the independent sources presented.
In summary, the subject is covered in a large number of independent reliable secondary sources, including more than thirty television news segments and multiple print and online publications. These meet the requirements of WP:BIO and support keeping the article. Cdlosangeles (talk) 20:10, 15 November 2025 (UTC)— Cdlosangeles (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Copyright violations are not a "technical issue", but a serious matter that puts Wikipedia in legal jeopardy if allowed to persist. Most images found on the internet-including stills from TV broadcasts- are not suitable for use on Wikipedia.
Quite frankly, this article is so glowing in its praise of Mr. Devine that if you aren't him or don't work for him, he should hire you. Most of his personal information is unsourced- where did you get this information? The citations in the Artistry section are largely to the website of people who worked with him- they don't provide significant coverage of him or even say what is claimed- such as "Cliff Divine studied for three months at Identity School of Acting in Los Angeles, founded by Femi Oguns, whose alumni include John Boyega and Letitia Wright." The two sources don't even mention Mr. Devine.
As I said, his organization may very well be notable. 331dot (talk) 20:27, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The section about Memory Studios is only sourced to the Memory Studios website and his IMDB entry on Amazon(IMDB is user-generated and not considered a reliable source) and should just be removed. The other citations in that section just document the existence of his work. 331dot (talk) 20:32, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you @331dot for raising the copyright concerns. I want to clarify that I have already started working on the image and licensing issues. The process is ongoing, and I would have appreciated the opportunity to address these concerns before every file was removed. I understand the importance of copyright compliance, and I intend to fully resolve that part of the article.
Regarding the content itself, the focus of the AfD should be the independent secondary sources, many of which come from established broadcasters with full editorial oversight. These sources provide significant and repeated coverage over several years. The issues you pointed out about certain biographical details or non-independent references are already being reviewed and can be adjusted. These are normal improvements, not reasons to remove the entire subject.
I would genuinely appreciate support in improving what has taken months to assemble, rather than seeing everything removed in a matter of days. Collaboration is what strengthens articles, and many of the concerns you mentioned can be fixed through normal editing. I am committed to addressing them.
I hope we can focus on constructive improvement instead of rapid removal. If there are specific areas where you believe revisions would be beneficial, I am open to working on them. My intention is to follow policy and build a solid, well-sourced article, and your help in that process would be welcome. Cdlosangeles (talk) 20:48, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Copyright violations cannot be allowed to stand for even one second. Wikipedia must make every effort to remove them or it is at risk of legal action, if not in this specific case, in other cases. If you have copyright-compliant images, you are free to upload those. 331dot (talk) 20:56, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Entirety of "Personal life and philosophy" section has no sourcing or no relevant sourcing; entirety of "Immigration struggles and the American dream" is unsourced and the sources there aren't about subject. Same with "Recognition and honors" section and those are only the three I looked at closely. Doesn't seem to meet WP:BIO or WP:GNG at all. The whole article reads like an AI bot wrote it, which I know the nom brought up concerns about the user Cdlosangeles being AI - I feel the same looking at this. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:29, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Fails WP:BIO for the subject. Also, this is an autobiography. 🦆 Mike Allen 21:35, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – while there are a ton of sources here, many of them are either primary sources or do not prove anything about the article's subject (for instance, it may look like this source is being used to prove Divine studied under Jack Garfein, but there is zero mention of Divine there). It is possible that Divine is notable, but unfortunately, the flood of irrelevant sources makes it impossible to tell – if that is the case, WP:TNT applies. RunningTiger123 (talk) 22:29, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Promotional autobiography authored by the subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Barry Wom (talk • contribs)
Delete.. Everyone else is saying that NewestPiano (talk) 20:46, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Marino

[edit]
Patrick Marino (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article doesn’t meet WP:GNG or WP:BIO. Almost all sources are promotional blogs, PR-style features, or company-affiliated writeups. They repeat Marino’s business résumé but don’t provide independent, in-depth coverage about him as a subject. The only reliable sources (Variety) barely mention Marino and are focused on the film Lice, not on him personally. His notability in those articles is routine involvement as Kevin Connolly’s business partner, which falls under WP:NOTINHERITED. Acrom12 (talk) 03:36, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The citations presented are OK. He has coverage in Yahoo also. I have also found these additional articles CEO World and Deadline News.Yolandagonzales (talk) 16:45, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Subject meets WP:GNG through multiple independent, reliable sources providing significant coverage. The article cites several sources with substantial content about the subject, demonstrating notability beyond routine coverage. Additional reliable sources have been provided by Yolandagonzales, further strengthening the case for notability. The sources are independent of the subject and provide more than trivial mentions.Sandycubs (talk) 18:32, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tilly Norwood

[edit]
Tilly Norwood (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I have seriously gone back and forth in my mind about making this nomination. For some background, 6 weeks ago I contacted a fellow editor who is very experienced, to get their opinion on the article. (I don't know whether it is okay to link it due to the WP:CANVASSING rule, so I will opt not to.) The main issue was that the entire media decided to report on Norwood en masse, creating a significant amount of coverage in the span of a week. This is evident in the article, which has no sources from after Oct 3. The sources are almost all reliable, there is no question there, however it is quite clearly about one thing and nothing else. WP:BLP1E doesn't apply as Norwood isn't "alive". Norwood, apart from existing, hasn't actually done anything. Literally nothing. WP:GNG is met because of the amount of initial coverage there was. I can't think of a notability policy that hasn't been met here.

This article is an example of WP:RECENTISM, which is an essay, so isn't really strong enough rationale for deletion on its own. I believe WP:CRYSTAL is somewhat relevant as the coverage Norwood has received relates to how she can save filmmakers money in the future by casting her. As of yet, this has not happened. WP:TOOSOON also applies to this. Then there is WP:INDISCRIMINATE, but this falls flat on its face most of the time at AfD, so I am not going to try and make that argument here. I think the strongest policy I can cite here is WP:NOTNEWS.

Basically, this is an AI persona created by a non-notable company, founded by a questionably notable actress. I don't think there is a precedent for this, but I don't believe for a second that Norwood qualifies for a standalone article. This is nothing more than a trend that came into existence and died in the same week. 11WB (talk) 00:23, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artificial intelligence-related deletion discussions. 11WB (talk) 00:23, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: You have about 20 RS discussing this avatar/thing, I'm not sure how this can't be notable. Oaktree b (talk) 00:48, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Clicking on the "news" tab in the AfD nom brings up at last 30 pages in Google News, about 20 or so are RS... Oldest are a month ago, some as recent a few days ago. Heck, criminal events don't get this much coverage in RS. Oaktree b (talk) 00:51, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    From the last 24 hours, there are articles from New York Post (not reliable per WP:NYPOST). None of the others on the first page are known on Wikipedia, so their reliability is unknown. France 24 is the only one that has consensus as being actually reliable. I really don't think we want to fill the article with unreliable coverage from the likes of NYP... 11WB (talk) 01:07, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snow Keep there are reliable news sources talking about it from September 30th to yesterday. Mikeycdiamond (talk) 01:38, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I'm not sure I understand why this was nominated at all. Nominator has admitted themselves that the topic meets WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV with plenty of reliable sources, and has failed to cite actual policy that would justify deletion. MidnightMayhem (talk) 01:54, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    See Talk:Tilly Norwood#This Wikipedia article should be deleted. 11WB (talk) 01:58, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @MidnightMayhem, I did cite a policy actually, WP:CRYSTAL. 11WB (talk) 02:02, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    CRYSTAL requires a prediction or speculation on the future. I don't see that in the article. Could you cite a section of the article which you see as speculation? Mikeycdiamond (talk) 02:21, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I think WP:CRYSTAL is a fairly weak argument here considering that most of the sourcing and prose in the article is grounded in current commentary, and all I'm seeing at the talk page is a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT arguing that Norwood is AI slop. I agree with editor Erik's explanation that Wikipedia summarizes coverage from reliable sources, and that if notability is established, quality of the topic doesn't matter. I'll point out again that you admitted GNG and SIGCOV are met. So, I still don't see enough reason for deletion. MidnightMayhem (talk) 02:27, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I can't speak for other editors, whether IDONTLIKEIT applies or not to them, I am not able to answer. I can only speak for myself in that I make AfD nominations when I believe there is a case for an article to not be included on Wikipedia. @Mikeycdiamond, you have asked me a question, so I am going to assume you wanted me to answer, I want to be very careful I don't come across as if I am bludgeoning. The following quotes from the article come under WP:CRYSTAL:
    'Particle6 has stated that using Norwood could cut production costs by 90%.' - This is a prediction.
    'Actresses Melissa Barrera, Kiersey Clemons, and Natasha Lyonne suggested boycotting any agency who signed Norwood, while Mara Wilson asked why none of the "hundreds of living young women" who went into Norwood could be hired instead.' - This line in the reception section doesn't appear as being a prediction, but the general topic is about whether agencies will hire Norwood in the future.
    'Van der Velden claimed that studios had dropped their objections by May after being opposed in February, and that multiple talent agencies were considering representing Norwood.' - The source from Deadline, which is reliable, says that this is expected. They were talking about it with them, but it is not a guarantee, so Van der Velden made a prediction here.
    I will say the article has been improved since it was first created, which is good. However, it is based entirely on sources that are contemporary reporting, which is covered under WP:NOTNEWS. I have expressed my reasoning in my initial post, it is a tough case to make, but I genuinely believe there is nothing differentiating Norwood from any other AI character anybody could make using Google Veo or another generator. This does need to be my last reply now, as I have already crossed into bludgeoning territory. I am answering @Mikeycdiamond's question and not intending to force a point through. 11WB (talk) 02:39, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The first quote should probably be removed, but that isn't enough of a reason to delete the whole article, the second quote makes no predictions, and the third quote makes no claim that the agencies will hire her, just that they're considering it. As for your not news arguement, it has gotten consistent coverage for two months, what more could you want? Also, yes, it is no different than any other AI, but we don't get to decide that Tilly Norwood isn't notable just because we think it is dumb. I personally think it is dystopian, but my personal opinion holds no weight here. Mikeycdiamond (talk) 03:10, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I've gone over this in my head for about a month already. I was told to wait, which I have. However, I bit the bullet and decided to just get it over with. GNG is only met because the media decided to report it en masse. That is not my argument for deletion in this AfD. NOTNEWS, CRYSTAL, RECENTISM, TOOSOON and INDISCRIMINATE are. Of those, NOTNEWS probably has the strongest policy rationale for deletion. CRYSTAL has been rebutted, but the others have not. 11WB (talk) 04:51, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I am not surprised by the keep votes coming in already. I'm not going to respond to every vote as that would amount to WP:BLUDGEONING. This article from The Independent reports that the company who created Norwood are planning to make 40 more AI "actors". If the next 40 get this much coverage, then surely they should all get their own articles? 11WB (talk) 01:57, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It is unlikely they will get similar coverage. Tilly Norwood was a shock, and, as much as I hate to say this, an innovation. She represents the distopia that has been slowly approaching since the rise of ChatGPT. The shock of an AI being able to "act" and peoples hate for AI is what likely caused the sparks of debate, and eventually, notability. Mikeycdiamond (talk) 02:26, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    +1 jolielover♥talk 08:33, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. 11WB (talk) 02:15, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. 11WB (talk) 02:16, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Internet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:48, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep meets WP:GNG. I think there's enough coverage to overshadow RECENTISM, or similarly related policies/guidelines. jolielover♥talk 08:27, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Points 2, 3, and 4 of WP:NOTNEWS apply to this article. Although it’s true Norwood meets the general notability outlined in WP:GNG, articles on wikipedia must meet notability requirements “and not excluded under the What Wikipedia is not policy”. See paragraph four in Wikipedia:Notability. If Norwood actually stars in something and gets another round of media coverage, I could see the NOTNEWS rule no longer applying. JoeyS7 (talk) 13:23, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You summed this up better than I ever could have. Thank you. For anybody viewing this AfD, how @JoeyS7 explained their rationale aligns with my own. NOTNEWS is the most relevant policy that Norwood violates. 11WB (talk) 15:28, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am going to attempt to merge the mini discussion happening at @Benmite's vote and respond to JoeyS7's vote point by point. The following are my arguments against JoeyS7 points:
Point 2: There is nothing routine about this; Tilly Norwood is a first in the film industry. She also has been covered (at least by the sources in the article) from July 30 to November 13. While the premise of Tilly Norwood is idiotic, it has been widely discussed over a long period of time.
Point 3: She isn't known for a single event. Particle6, the creator of Tilly Norwood, released a sketch of her on July 30 that Broadcast International made an article about. The company sat on Tilly Norwood for a few months, before showing it off at the Zurich Film Festival, which got it past the notability criteria.
Point 4: I agree that the article is like a diary when it comes to including every person's view on Tilly Norwood, but per Wikipedia:IMPROVEIT, we shouldn't delete an article because of a fixable problem. Mikeycdiamond (talk) 01:01, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You are right on point 2. I find your reasoning for point 3 questionable, being shown at an event as a concept and actually being cast in a box office film are two very different things, and the latter has not yet happened. If we are going to allow anything that has been shown at any festival ever, then that isn't a very high bar to meet. You basically conceded point 4, unfortunately it goes a bit beyond being strictly an editorial issue when Norwood's entire history takes place over less than 2 months. NOTNEWS is still very relevant here. 11WB (talk) 03:35, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The bar isn't being set by the film festival; we are obviously not making being at a film festival a reason for notability. The point I made was that Tilly Norwood was known for two events: the skit and the film festival. Those events weren't connected in any way and is two events under the implied definition set by the policy. If point 3 was applicable, there would be an overlaying event within the article which we could write an article about. Also, what is wrong with the article that is being used for the point 4 claim is strictly an editorial issue. If we trimmed the last three paragraphs to be more condense, the article would be fine. Mikeycdiamond (talk) 21:33, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Passes notability, but not WP:NOTNEWS/WP:SUSTAINED. I'm going to say the page is WP:TOOSOON, and if she continues to be a figure used in the entertainment industry and garners more coverage, then the argument for a page would be stronger. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:59, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. WP:NOTNEWS does not override WP:GNG when the subject has significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources that discuss the topic in depth rather than simply reporting news events. This article clearly meets WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. WP:RECENTISM is an essay, not a policy, so it couldn't override WP:GNG even if it were applicable to this article, which in my view it isn't. I don't find WP:CRYSTAL or WP:TOOSOON particularly compelling because this article isn't making claims about the future that are speculative or unverified; significant coverage has already been clearly established and notability is not temporary. While I understand that this subject matter is bound to draw some strong opinions (and god knows I have my own), the bottom line is WP:GNG is the main threshold and this article passes it. — Hunter Kahn 19:57, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:NSUSTAINED actually says otherwise. 'Brief bursts of news coverage may not sufficiently demonstrate notability. However, sustained coverage is an indicator of notability, as described by notability of events. New organizations and future events might pass WP:GNG, but lack sufficient coverage to satisfy WP:NOTNEWSPAPER.' This is a pretty firm notability guideline and one which this AfD uses against keeping the article. The sustained coverage is either not reliable or not relevant to the article and Wikipedia, as said above, is not a source for short-lived news events such as Norwood (and any others that follow). 11WB (talk) 22:12, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Respectfully, but I believe WP:NSUSTAINED is being misapplied here. WP:NSUSTAINED is not a standalone notability requirement, it is an interpretive guidance for how to assess events and bursts of news that do not demonstrate in-depth coverage. The key part of the guideline is that "brief bursts of news coverage may not sufficiently demonstrate notability." In this case, the coverage is neither trivial nor fleeting. There are multiple independent, reputable sources providing substantive, non-routine analysis of the subject, which is exactly what WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV require. — Hunter Kahn 03:43, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      GNG and SIGCOV are not what's being argued here. The main policy for deletion is NOTNEWS. 11WB (talk) 04:06, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:NOTNEWS is policy, whereas WP:GNG is a guideline; so you are entirely incorrect. Policy is ALWAYS controlling over guidelines. TarnishedPathtalk 10:11, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: @Hunter Kahn did not disclose this, but they are the creator of the article. 11WB (talk) 17:39, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The citations presented are OK. Yolandagonzales (talk) 17:20, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Per JoeyS7 and ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ. WP:NOT is policy which is ALWAYS controlling over WP:GNG (guideline). TarnishedPathtalk 10:18, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Article is well cited by reliable sources, the subject of the article is notable as it's presented as a key argument about AI integration into Hollywood and per MidnightMayhem. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 18:49, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep There have been sources both mentioning and exclusively about Tilly Norwood from reliable sources published after Oct 3: on October 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 15, 17, 18, 22, 23, 24, 25, and 31; and November 6, 7, 8, 10 11, 12, 13, and 17. I've bolded the sources that I've already added to the article and plan to add the rest soon, so it's no longer true that there are no sources from after Oct 3 and, as far as the sources that exist, I'd say coverage has been shown to extend far past October 3.
Whether or not the company or the actress behind Tilly Norwood are non-notable or questionably notable, respectively, is immaterial to the discussion because neither the company nor the actress are the subject of the article. There have also been op-eds entirely or largely about Tilly Norwood published variously throughout October 7 to 20:
  • The i Paper ("Hollywood is Getting the Actress It Deserves")
  • Wall Street Journal ("Tilly Norwood and U.S. Renewal")
  • Fast Company ("What the Tilly Norwood Moment Should Teach Us")
  • Los Angeles Times ("It's not acting if it’s just one AI avatar talking at another")
  • The Conversation (twice)
  • ABC News ("Why calling Tilly Norwood 'a piece of art' spectacularly misses the point")
  • Cheddar ("Why AI 'actress' Tilly Norwood is no threat to Hollywood")
  • CNA ("What the Tilly Norwood saga proved about AI-generated content")
All of these are about much more than how she can save filmmakers money in the future by casting her, so not only does WP:CRYSTAL not apply here (as established above by Mikeycdiamond and MidnightMayhem), but this nomination is arguably a much closer example of what the policy cautions against, as 11WB writes, This is nothing more than a trend that came into existence and died in the same week, a preemptive assessment of the subject's relevancy predicated exclusively on original research. benǝʇᴉɯ 21:40, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You haven't actually rebutted the main policy here, which is NOTNEWS, much like many of the others here who have also !voted to keep the article. I already said above that CRYSTAL no longer applies, that was an editorial point only. It would be helpful for the discussion to address the main policy being argued, as it has been made clear from the beginning that GNG/SIGCOV are not the issue. 11WB (talk) 21:44, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I will say, all of the sources you have provided are reliable, with the possible exception of AV Club, which originated from The Onion. Unfortunately, this does not preclude Norwood from simply being a lightning strike phenomenon that the media has simply chosen to report on without reasonable end. (Just a sidenote: I likely would not have replied, however you did ping, which means your comment was in my alerts tab. No issue with that, just wanted to let you know!) 11WB (talk) 21:51, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:AVCLUB for A.V. Club's reliability. You are again introducing POV to the discussion—whether or not you find the media coverage reasonable is not a key point of discussion, and saying that it is being reported on without ... end seems to suggest the opposite of your assertion in the very same sentence that this is a lightning strike phenomenon. And thus far, as far as I can tell, neither you nor the other delete voters have actually linked specific parts of this article to WP:NOTNEWS, so I would recommend providing examples so as to avoid merely pointing at the policy. benǝʇᴉɯ 22:33, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This has already been done as well. My reply also affirms that I agree with the rationale in that !vote. 11WB (talk) 22:48, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To your point on AV Club, RS/PS clearly states the following: 'There is consensus that AI-generated articles are generally unreliable; The A.V. Club's parent company, G/O Media, began releasing such pieces in July 2023, usually under the byline "The A.V. Club Bot".'. The time of which the article you linked, is from. Whether or not that article is generated by an LLM is up for debate. However, based on the recent Dawn controversy, I would not trust an outlet that releases articles using AI. 11WB (talk) 22:51, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ashoke Pandit

[edit]
Ashoke Pandit (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I cannot find significant coverage about this film making individual. Has contributed only in 1 notable movie, 72 Hoorain so far where he was a co-producer. The subject clearly fails WP:FILMMAKER. Zalaraz (talk) 01:04, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT: An Indian filmmaker born in Islamabad? Something fishy is going on here... WareWolf665 (talk) 21:48, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fade258 (talk) 02:57, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Petersen (actor)

[edit]
Chris Petersen (actor) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable child actor, who only had bit roles. Could not find SIGCOV on him. Natg 19 (talk) 19:19, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 01:12, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NACTOR. He was a lead actor in The Little Dragons and When Every Day Was the Fourth of July, as noted by those articles. In The Little Dragons, the two main protagonists of the film are brothers Zack and Woody, played by Chris Petersen and his brother Pat Petersen. In WEDWTFOJ, the "story follows Daniel Cooper" (who is played by Chris Petersen), meaning that he is definitely in a lead role. Katzrockso (talk) 02:26, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jade Villalon

[edit]
Jade Villalon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Based entirely on non-independent sources. Not clear this singer is independently notable of Sweetbox. Fails WP:GNG. 4meter4 (talk) 02:56, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Sweetbox#Jade Villalon with the edit history preserved under the redirect so editors can selectively merge any reliably sourced encyclopedic content to that article. The only reliable source that covered this artist in depth was this article from her youth [58]. I found this article [59] from 2006, but it's unclear why it reports her as a "German pop singer". Otherwise, there was only passing mentions in routine coverage.Katzrockso (talk) 04:20, 13 November 2025 (UTC) Keep per WP:MUSICBIO. The subject is notable because her album Out of the Box (Jade Valerie album) received #28 on the Oricon Albums Chart in her solo career and charted for 6 weeks overall. She seems to have an East Asian fanbase, which is why it was more difficult to find English coverage. This is doubly problematic given that online Japanese news publications often remove their articles after a short period of time, making finding more coverage even more difficult. Katzrockso (talk) 01:58, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I found a few articles in Korean about her collaboration with Kim Dong-wan here [60] and then a later duet with Brian Joo [61] [62].
There was a review of one of her solo albums here in Korean [63]. Katzrockso (talk) 04:25, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would support a redirect/merge to Sweetbox#Jade Villalon as an WP:ATD. The brief work she has done outside that group could be covered in a couple sentences in that subsection.4meter4 (talk) 14:39, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I am undecided for voting purposes, but will point out that her later solo material (after Sweetbox) was under the name Jade Valerie, which might make a difference when searching. She has two solo albums under that name that have also been nominated for deletion, but nobody seems to have noticed Jade Vilallon discography which will have to be handled if everything in it is declared non-notable. The Jade Villalon section of the Sweetbox article, which has been suggested as a redirect target, is also full of poorly-supported fan trivia. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:25, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment from this link the subject appears to have charted per WP:GOODCHARTS, independently of Sweetbox. So does meet WP:MUSICBIO. ResonantDistortion 08:19, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 08:53, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hugo Gittard

[edit]
Hugo Gittard (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails GNG and WP:NBIO. There's no biography or career section as well, only a section for filmography (which only has one entry) and their TV work. Gommeh 📖   🎮 15:02, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 19:15, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as it is currently written this seems to fail notability. He isnt the focus of any news articles or independent pages that I could find. Bgrus22 (talk) 19:34, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Nothing about this person in French media. Most are tv show listings/cast credit lists. This was about the only one in a RS [64], it's literally his name in a list of credits for an episode. I don't see a French wiki article, so that's no help. I had to try a .fr Google search, and the link I gave only comes up after about 15 pages... There isn't anything to be found that we can use for sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 00:32, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dakota Skye (actress)

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Dakota Skye (actress) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Classic BLP1E/ONE EVENT territory. There is no real enduring coverage after her death. Spartaz Humbug! 14:28, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any further thoughts?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 03:16, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per wasianpower, this is not an instance of BLP1E. Frank(has DemoCracy DeprivaTion) 04:52, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – Her coverage extends beyond the event of death. Svartner (talk) 05:11, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep, weird and pointless AfD from a SPA(rtaz) nominator who has spent a decade or more on a morality crusade against pornography. Classic WP:BLP1ENOT, first because there is no "event" as obituaries do not fall into this category, and even assuming there was, the person is certainly not a WP:LOWPROFILE individual. Let alone this is not even a WP:BLP, WP:BLP1E requires each of three conditions being met, and the subject does not meet ANY of them. And the requirement of "real enduring coverage after death" looks like a brand new concept that goes against WP:NTEMP. Very questionable that a 2007 administrator seems unaware the guidelines or, even worse, is intentionally misapplying them due to a personal agenda. Standards were different in 2007, their RfA would today almost certainly be rejected within hours, possibly on the basis of this AfD alone. Cavarrone 08:37, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kylie Page

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Kylie Page (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This was deleted some years ago for being non notable and was recreated and kept after her death in the summer, an avalanche of non policy based keep votes saw it kept, but now the immediacy has died down its time to reevaluate this on a policy based discussion.

So firstly, none of the award based stuff counts, pornbio is long gone and even performers of the year get deleted for failing GNG,

Does this fail GNG? I would argue yes, the only close sources are about her death and the new york daily post is not an RS. ELmundo isn't indepth and there appears to be no independant reporting, just rehashing social media. Then EW has a byline and some evidence of investigating, but at the end is again part obit and part rehashed socials.

Even if we did accept the above sources, this is firmly in BLP1E or ONEEVENT territory.

So fails GNG, ENT, BIO, and BLP1E/ONEEVENT Spartaz Humbug! 11:24, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: She was notable and successful in her field. TigerFromEarth (talk) 19:03, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    PS: The 2nd nomination was ruled after an 'avalanche' of 7 Keep votes. I don't see a good reason for another AfD nomination. This almost seems like someone wants to keep voting until they get their intended result. TigerFromEarth (talk) 19:24, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This is precisely what I’m talking about. Apologies for the bluntness but this is previsely the policyfree kind of vote that destroyed the last discussion. So how was she notable in her field. Success is not a policy basednargument. What policy and sources are you offering here? I showed you mine, can you show me yours? Spartaz Humbug! 20:23, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You didn't provide a good reason for another AfD. The notability guidelines are not set in stone and just following the letter of the rules makes me think of WP:LAWYER. Another AfD discussion at the moment tries to delete musical act Gambino Family although they had a Top 20 Billboard album, because there is no list of criteria that establish inherent, uncontestable notability. (A Billboard entry would be a useful citerion, for example). A rule on concert tours says that Michael Jackson's record-setting Bad tour is an example of a notable tour. Such wishy-washy rules help nobody. Maybe there should be a rule that Top 30 searched adult actor on a specific platform should be proof of inherent notability. Otherwise, almost anybody can be deleted. TigerFromEarth (talk) 21:06, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    In addition, WP:ONEEVENT is clearly not applicable here. Her death was only reported so prominently because she was a well-known adult actor. So this is not 'firmly in BLP1E or ONEEVENT territory', as you wrote. TigerFromEarth (talk) 21:34, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Somwell known she has no hope of having an article on that basis alone. Please do share the sources supportimg your assertions Spartaz Humbug! 22:57, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    People magazine, TMZ, German magazine Focus, leading Austrian newspaper Kronen Zeitung reported her death or cause of death in long articles including her biography and career (you can google the articles). Just scratching the surface here. Other notable things about her are already in the article: She was in a Netflix documentary, worked with leading porn production companies, has a nomination for XBIZ. Plus she is a well-known adult actress if you look her up.
    This AfD nomination is doomed to fail anyway as there were no significant changes of circumstances between 2nd and 3rd nomination. TigerFromEarth (talk) 19:27, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thats the one event and why it fails notnews Spartaz Humbug! 11:25, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I count 4 notable instances in my former post. TigerFromEarth (talk) 22:34, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    And alll this discussion for a few kilobytes of data. Everything we delete in 2025 has the potential to be sorely missed in 2050 or later. There is no good reason to delete such an article. TigerFromEarth (talk) 22:38, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The Gambinos had no sourcing, this has a bit more sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 20:52, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Svartner (talk) 13:56, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Guerrilla Metropolitana

[edit]
Guerrilla Metropolitana (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. Not much independent coverage. His limited coverage is mostly interviews and reviews of films made by him. jolielover♥talk 05:06, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, thank you for taking the time to review the article. I believe that there is enough coverage about him to qualify for an article. A lot of the coverage about him is controversial which ultimately does come down to peoples opinion of him. However the citations provided (not all) do link back to established people in the film and media industries whom are discussing him as a director. I didn't include the following information in the article as it hasn't happened yet, an author is writing a book about him, which would be another reliable published source upon completion. is this something you feel should be included, and if you would be able to help me improve the article so it can stay that would be appreciated. many thanks. JoeSage95 (talk) 08:05, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, thanks for your comment. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, and we can't determine if someone or something will be notable in the future. As the book is not published as of now, it does not count as a source towards notability. jolielover♥talk 09:34, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, that is why I didn't include that information in the article as it has not happened yet. However I believe that the citations provided do show his notability within his field as a directer. He has been spoken about by industry professionals, university lecturers, and critics. It just so happens that some of these are in a video format rather than for example a newspaper or book.
If you were to write this article what type of sources would you be looking to include? Books, Magazines, appearances on the news? Im very new to wikipedia. Im really trying but it's confusing. I would like the article to stay up and not be deleted and i'm willing to work to making it the best it can be. JoeSage95 (talk) 10:01, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • information Info - Note to closer for soft deletion: This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing.
Logs: 2025-11 ✍️ create
--Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: AfD currently counts as a soft delete due to no opposition to the delete rationale. @JoeSage95's response comes across as a rationale to keep, however without the affirmation, this is still a soft delete. I am relisting to allow for further discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 11WB (talk) 04:44, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.
The article creator has disclosed paid editing on their profile and they also created a (declined) draft for a film made by this BLP, disclosing on the draft page that they were paid for it. That isn't a factor in my vote and they've followed all the guidelines in declaring paid editing, but it's important to note so that their motivation for creating the article (compensation rather than a genuine belief that notability exists) is seen. aesurias (talk) 08:20, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
instead of deletion could we move the article into the drafts folder so it can be edited without the need for a complete re-write ? JoeSage95 (talk) 09:56, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@JoeSage95, you are welcome to leave a !vote at this AfD. 11WB (talk) 17:23, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
i'm sorry I don't know what that means or how to do it JoeSage95 (talk) 11:07, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You simply type 'keep' or 'delete' or an WP:ATD choice using MOS:B. I am unable to type out how to write it due to it automatically converting the text to bold. 11WB (talk) 13:54, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You can check the editor and see how @Aesurias wrote it above. See where they've written 'Delete per nom.' 11WB (talk) 13:56, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Julia Hammett-Jamart

[edit]
Julia Hammett-Jamart (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Insufficient depth of coverage from reliable sources; most of the sources listed are mentions or written by the subject. A Sunday Telegraph article from 1991 is referenced, but it doesn't appear to be available anywhere. Likely undisclosed COI editing. OhNoitsJamie Talk 22:53, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jamie. Interesting. Did I miss something? The article seems to have a bucket-load of independent sources. Copy/Paste here below:
References
~2025-32325-56 (talk) 16:38, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's not necessary to copy/paste all of the references that are already in the article. Please re-read what I wrote above; nearly all of the references are either articles written by the subjects or just links to film listings; for example, this link from screenaustralia.gov.au is simply a listing of a film by the subject. I don't see any third-party reliable sources that have in-depth coverage of the subject. OhNoitsJamie Talk 16:52, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete despite the grand claims of the article, she only gets 2 google news hits. Lacking coverage to meet WP:CREATIVE and WP:BIO, and some serious WP:COI concerns here. LibStar (talk) 05:46, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi. I’m a new user so I hope it is OK to join the discussion here (new to wikipedia but experienced at editing text). Am I right in thinking that this article is not a new wikipedia entry (history tab shows entries dating back about 8 years)? Also looks like it has had more than 20 contributors, which suggests a certain level of neutrality.
    I was checking out the Wikipedia deletion policy, and found this: “If editing can address all relevant reasons for deletion, this should be done rather than deleting the page”. So just wondering whether improving the article might be an important first step (and may be more consistent with Wikipedia policy)?
    A quick search brings up quite a few sources sources that could be added to improve this article. For instance, I found this reference, which is a third party, independent article with depth of coverage from a reliable source: https://comm.ku.dk/calendar/2019/european-film/
    I'm guessing there are probably more. Don't know for sure but could try. ~2025-32854-94 (talk) 19:03, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    A guest lecturer mentioned in a university press release is a long way from showing notability... None of these are helpful. Oaktree b (talk) 20:59, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Just a note that despite the request to join the discussion as a new user, this appears to be the same editor that dropped the three lists of references hatted above. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:00, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Wouldn't pass academic notability [66] with a sub 100 citations... a regular Gsearch brings up social media, LinkedIn, Imdb, then off a cliff for RS. There just isn't enough here to show notability. Oaktree b (talk) 20:58, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I don't feel I can responsibly close this discussion as a Delete without at least a minimum investigation into all of these sources dumped into this discussion. There are a ton so a source assessment doesn't need to be comprehensive but at least a summary of sources would help out here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:20, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sandy Master

[edit]
Sandy Master (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Repost of previously deleted and salted material: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sandy (choreographer) (2nd nomination) * Pppery * it has begun... 18:28, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: With two previous AFDs (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sandy (choreographer)) a Soft deletion is not an option here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:24, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ilakkiyan

[edit]
Ilakkiyan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Very little notability here. Most of the sources fail WP:RS (references to other language wikipedias and IMDB). IMHO this is a case of WP:BLOWITUP. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 16:00, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Salvio giuliano 16:07, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NAUTHOR. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 23:16, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Independent Tamil sources confirm the notability of Ilakkiyan (இலக்கியன்), a Tamil film lyricist active from the late 1980s.
# **Vaamanan**, Thiraik Kavignargal 2000 Varai (திரைக் கவிஞர்கள் 2000 வரை) – 1st Edition, Chennai: Sakthi Pathippagam / Kalaignan Pathippagam, 2000, pp. 368–369.
:* This **published reference book** includes a short biography and photograph of Ilakkiyan.
:* The text explicitly states that Ilakkiyan worked as an assistant director before becoming a lyricist, and that he wrote songs for the Tamil films Rettai Jadai Vayasu and Priyam.
:* Tamil excerpt (from the book)
: : > “இன்னொரு புதுப் பாடலாசிரியர் இலக்கியன். எண்பதுகளின் கடைசியில் சேலத்திலிருந்து சென்னை வந்தார் இலக்கியன். பல பேர்களிடம் உதவி இயக்குநராகப் பணியாற்றினார். இசையமைப்பாளர் வித்யாசாகர், இயக்குநர் சிவகுமார், 'ப்ரியம்' பாண்டியன் ஆகியோர் தந்த ஆதரவால் பாடலாசிரியர் ஆனார். ‘ரெட்டை ஜடை வயசு’, ‘ப்ரியம்’ என்று சில படங்களில் பாடல் எழுதியிருக்கிறார்.”
: — வாமனன், *திரைக் கவிஞர்கள் 2000 வரை*, பக். 368–369.
:* **English translation:**
: > “Another new lyricist is Ilakkiyan. In the late 1980s, he came from Salem to Chennai and worked as an assistant director to several people. With the support of composer Vidyasagar, director Sivakumar, and ‘Priyam’ Pandian, he became a lyricist. He has written songs for films such as *Rettai Jadai Vayasu* and *Priyam*.”
: —Vamanan, *Thiraik kavingarkal 2000 varai*, pp. 368–369.
:* Verified library catalog records:
Eastern University, Sri Lanka – Permanent Reference Book 

Roja Muthiah Research Library, Chennai – Research Library Catalog Record
# **Tamil magazine coverage (சுயாதீன இதழ் ஆதாரங்கள்) :**
:* Ananda Vikatan (4 July 1999) – Feature article “தமிழ் சினிமாவில் புதிய புலவர்கள்,” covering Ilakkiyan’s background with photographs.
:* Cinema Express (1 & 15 November 1999) – Two feature articles about emerging Tamil lyricists, including Ilakkiyan with photos and interviews.
# These sources are **independent, verifiable, and reliable**, fulfilling WP:RS, WP:V, and WP:GNG.
# Together, they confirm that Ilakkiyan is a **documented Tamil film lyricist** with independent recognition in reliable publications. Thanks. Yaathuraa (talk) 10:00, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 18:47, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: If the sources Thiraik Kavignargal 2000 Varai, Ananda Vikatan (1999), and Cinema Express (1999) have substantial coverage, the subject likely meets WP:GNG, but it's impossible to tell since I can't find these articles/section anywhere online, much less read them. -- Reconrabbit 19:13, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Cammarata

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Michael Cammarata (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Twice deleted previously. I doubt the person has become notable in WP:GNG sense even though there is a lot of SEO content online. The article is currently being edited by a few WP:SPAs to add negative information, while some IPs appear to be countering those edits (possibly the subject himself). He is mainly for serving as CEO of small companies such as Neptune Wellness Solutions and Schmidt's Naturals. After applying the stringent WP:BLP policy, not much would likely remain, and most of the controversies or negative aspects could be better covered in the Neptune Wellness Solutions article per WP:NOPAGE.

Some cited sources like Forbes article ([67]) falls under WP:FORBESCON, and the Money article is merely an WP:INTERVIEW with limited independent content, written by Paul Schrodt, a professional guest contributor. The article clearly lacks the WP:BLP-quality sources required to meet WP:SIGCOV. A simple redirect to Neptune Wellness Solutions should be enough to preserve relevant information. Brodie Dotson (talk) 23:55, 1 November 2025 (UTC) via UtherSRG (talk) 15:07, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Already brought to AFD so Soft deletion is not appropriate.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:40, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: With divergent opinions, a source assessment here would be helpful. And, as noted not all of these 4 AFDs are about the same subject.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:02, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Neptune Wellness Solutions. Among the three sources presented by Katzrockso, the first is fine, the second is a repackaged press release[71], the third is likely promotional since it has no byline, and all non-bylined articles in Men's Journal's entertainment section look promotional[72]. There is no need to salt the page, as this version was created in 2019 via AfC. Kelob2678 (talk) 14:16, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lassy Marquez

[edit]
Lassy Marquez (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG - Arcrev1 (talk) 14:00, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: policy based input please
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:35, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I don't think that even though the article is well-sourced, it provides enough basis to create a stand-alone article. According to WP:SIGCOV, the coverage must be non-trivial, but the listed sources are mostly trivial and none focus on their life in a way that would establish notability. If you read the policy, it specifies the use of "secondary" sources, yet most of the listed sources that cover them (independently) are primary sources, such as GMA Network and ABS-CBN. Finally, the sources should be independent of the subject, but of the nearly 40 sources listed, almost all are not independent. - Arcrev1 (talk) 09:55, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment:Looking at the references there are 9 primary sources in the article out of 44 is pikapika, bandera, balita, Interaksyon, adobo magazine etc are not secondary sources? The article looks notable to me unlike the articles of Rupaul's Drag Race contestants. - Zekab (talk)
  • Comment: Sources mentioned by Zekab (Pikapika, Bandera, Balita, Interaksyon, Adobo Magazine) appear to be secondary though some caution is needed with Pikapika as the said publication and the subject's agent are part of the same conglomerate if not the same company. -Ian Lopez @ 17:23, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Ianlopez1115 and Zekab: Yes, what you said is correct. There are many secondary sources in the article, but the question is what makes secondary sources a valid basis for establishing a subject's notability. According to WP:GNG, it requires secondary sources, but those listed or labeled as independent reliable sources do not actually show independence from the subject. The policy says sources must be independent of the subject, non-trivial, and must provide significant coverage. Yes, there are secondary sources, but they do not meet the other criteria. The first source in the article, which is from BANDERA, is the only one that appears to provide real coverage focused on the subject and is independent of the subject. The fourth source, which is from BANDERA INQUIRER, is not independent because it includes Vice Ganda and MC, and it is very trivial, so it is not independent of Lassy. The fifth source is the same. The sixth source is simply news about flooding and not about his life, only a one-time event. The seventh source is from PEP, which is owned by GMA Network, so that is considered primary. The fourteenth source is about a television program, not about Lassy. Sources eight through thirteen are all not about him either. Although they are secondary sources, they are not about Lassy. The twenty first source is also not independent of the subject because MC is included. The twenty first and twenty second sources come from PHILIPPINE STAR and ABANTE, but they are still not independent of the subject. The twenty fifth source comes from ABANTE, but again, it is not independent of the subject. The same applies to the twenty sixth source. The thirtieth source from PIKAPIKA is not coverage about his life. It only says that Vice is confident and proud of him, which is not a story about Lassy or independent of him. The thirty second source is also from PIKAPIKA but is about the life of Chad Kinis. The thirty third source is from ADOBO MAGAZINE, but it is not independent of the subject because it is about the movie Fantastica. The rest can be understood simply by reading the titles. You cannot look only at whether they are secondary sources. Aside from the first one, none of them provide coverage about the subject or independence from the subject. - Arcrev1 (talk) 01:28, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Arcrev1 I suggest you use {{Source assess}} to critique all the sources being used right now, like the review of the sources used in an article now deleted through Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Today Hong Kong, Tomorrow Taiwan, Day After Tomorrow Okinawa. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 05:30, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I added additional sources, sources who covered Lassy Marquez independently just like source number 8, 9, 13, 28 and 40 hoping everyone will consider. Abskiee (talk)
  • Keep: Passed per WP:NACTOR: The person has had significant roles in multiple notable films, notable television shows, stage performances, or other notable productions. Some of the filmography are unsourced but it can be resolve that. ROY is WAR Talk! 03:50, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Svartner (talk) 13:51, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This section is transcluded from Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 August 17. (edit | history)
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete


Proposed deletions

[edit]

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

Categories

[edit]


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Actors_and_filmmakers&oldid=1323556012"