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]

Surjasikha Das

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

The subject fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. Taabii (talk) 11:29, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jaya Thakur

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

The subject is a model and beauty pageant titleholder (Miss Himalaya 2023), but the coverage available is mostly limited to routine announcements, brandwire/sponsored content, and press release-style pieces. There is a lack of significant, in-depth coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources as required by WP:GNG. Thilsebatti (talk) 02:59, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sarjin Kumar

[edit]
Sarjin Kumar (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)

There is little coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources under the name “Sarjin Kumar.” Most info comes from social media or entertainment sites, which doesn’t sufficiently establish encyclopedic significance. The BO77! (talk) 19:55, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @The BO77! I think the page i have created needs more citation and can be improved. But placing a deletion tag maybe avoided and you can ask for improvement. Thanks! Gooi-007 (talk) 19:58, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Okay! @Gooi-007 but don’t need to remove the deletion tag yourself an admin will close the discussion as “Withdrawn” and remove the tag once processed.The BO77! (talk) 20:04, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: My source analysis given below
No. Source Type Independent Reliable Significant Coverage Notes
1 Filmibeat – "Who is Sarjin Kumar?" Entertainment listing ✅ Yes ❌ No ❌ No Low-quality site per WP:ALMGS; routine coverage; no depth.
2 ABP Nadu (Tamil) Regional news ✅ Yes ❌ No (Brandwire-tier) ❌ No Trivial mention of entry to a reality show; no biographical depth.
3 Mirchi9 (hypothetical) Entertainment blog ✅ Yes ❌ No ❌ No Unverified; generally unreliable for establishing notability.
4 Social media mentions (Instagram, YouTube) Self-published ❌ No ❌ No ❌ No Fails WP:RS and WP:SELFPUB; unusable for notability.
5 TV appearance on *Cooku with Comali 6* Primary source (TV show) ❌ No ❌ No ❌ No Being part of a TV show cast is not sufficient for notability without secondary coverage.

All sources fail to provide the in-depth, independent, and reliable coverage required under WP:GNG.Thilsebatti (talk) 03:14, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - I concur with other !voters here, that although the AFD nom was withdrawn by the nominator, there is no indication that this person meets notability criteria per WP:GNG, nor are a notable photographer, thus failing to meet WP:NARTIST, nor is there evidence that there is the kind of significant coverage in fully independent reliable sources covering his acting career to meet WP:NACTOR. Deleting it at this time would save community time, because it would just be renominated if the withdrawal was put into effect. Netherzone (talk) 15:16, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yong Yea

[edit]
Yong Yea (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)

Disputed redirect with no improvement, current sourcing consists of unreliable sources and simple mentions. Zero in-depth references from independent, reliable sources. Prolific, but Searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources to support meeting WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 14:49, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

→===V. Senthil Kumar===


V. Senthil Kumar (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 coverage is company-focused, not about him individually. There are no reliable, independent biographical profiles with in-depth coverage. The article relies on press releases, event coverage, and primary sources affiliated with Qube Cinema. While his AMPAS membership is a notable recognition, it is not supported by independent, in-depth coverage in reliable secondary sources. Thilsebatti (talk) 04:12, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and India. Thilsebatti (talk) 04:12, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Tamil Nadu. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:38, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I agree with the nominator. Most of the articles are about the company rather than the person, and even those are not from reliable sources. Therefore, this fails WP:GNG. Baqi:) (talk) 10:23, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — Passes both WP:GNG and WP:NBIO. Multiple independent, reliable sources offer significant biographical coverage, not mere routine company mentions:
    • D. Govardan, “They changed the way we watch movies”, The Times of India, 21 Nov 2022 – in‑depth career profile tracing Kumar’s innovations from Media Artists (1986) through Qube Wire (2018).
    • M. Suganth, “Chennai‑based movie tech guru Senthil Kumar gets Academy invite”, The Times of India, 1 Jul 2020 – coverage of his AMPAS induction.
    • Sowmya Rajendran, “Chennai Qube Cinemas’ Senthil Kumar speaks on being invited to be Academy member”, The News Minute, 1 Jul 2020 – independent interview.
    • Shobha Warrier, “Indian entrepreneurs have 100 times more opportunities today”, Rediff, 25 Nov 2013 – detailed entrepreneurial retrospective.
    • “Surprised, thrilled: Qube Cinemas co‑founder on Oscars Academy invitation”, The Week, 4 Jul 2020 – third‑party profile following AMPAS honour.
    • Special Achievement Award (IMAX Big Cine Expo, 2018)* – reported by Medianews4u, 29 Aug 2018. [oai_citation:0‡MediaNews4U](https://www.medianews4u.com/big-cine-expo-successfully-concludes-its-third-edition/)
    • Distinguished Alumni Award (NIT Tiruchirappalli, 2023)* – covered by The Times of India, 13 Dec 2023. [oai_citation:1‡The Times of India](https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/trichy/nit-t-distinguished-alumni-awards-and-young-achiever-awards/articleshow/105948111.cms)
    • These articles and award reports amply satisfy the “significant coverage” requirement of WP:GNG, while the AMPAS membership, IMAX Special Achievement Award, and NIT‑T Distinguished Alumni Award are all selective honours that meet WP-NBIO §1/§3/§8. Any COI or tone issues can be fixed through normal editing; they are not grounds for deletion. — SanjayMadhavan (talk) 07:56, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Disagree. The sources cited are either brief event-based mentions, interviews (primary), or trade/press-release style writeups. There is no in-depth, independent, reliably sourced biographical coverage of Senthil Kumar as required by WP:GNG. The AMPAS membership, IMAX Special Achievement Award, and NIT-T Distinguished Alumni Award are indeed selective recognitions. However, WP:NBIO requires that such awards be covered in-depth by reliable independent sources, which is lacking here. At present, the subject fails both WP:GNG and WP:NBIO due to absence of sustained, independent biographical coverage in reliable secondary sources. Most sources are limited to brief announcements or primary interviews. Thilsebatti (talk) 18:50, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The source analysis is as follows.
No. Source Publication Type Reliable? Independent? Substantial Coverage? Notes
1 [‘Indian films are known for stories’: V Senthil Kumar](https://indianexpress.com/article/entertainment/tamil/indian-films-are-known-for-stories-v-senthil-kumar-9162105/) Indian Express Interview ✅🟩 ❌ ❌ Primary source. Reliable but not independent. Very limited depth.
2 [Qube's Senthil Kumar joins Oscars Academy](https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/tamil/movies/news/qubes-senthil-kumar-joins-oscars-academy/articleshow/101615481.cms) Times of India News article ✅🟩 ✅ ❌ Reliable and independent, but only event-based coverage.
3 [SMPTE Fellow recognition](https://www.indiantelevision.com/technology/software/v-senthil-kumar-elected-as-smpte-fellow-240123) Indiantelevision.com Trade article ✅🟨 ✅ ❌ Trade-style source. Coverage is announcement-based.
4 [Exchange4Media – SMPTE fellow](https://www.exchange4media.com/media-tv-news/v-senthil-kumar-of-qube-cinema-elected-as-smpte-fellow-129698.html) Exchange4Media Trade article ✅🟨 ✅ ❌ Trade media. Lacks biographical depth.
5 [India Today – Oscars invite](https://www.indiatoday.in/movies/regional-cinema/story/oscars-2023-sid-sriram-monika-shergill-senthil-kumar-are-now-part-of-oscars-academy-2403602-2023-07-10) India Today News article ✅🟩 ✅ ❌ Reliable and independent. But only brief mention among others.
6 [Behindwoods – Oscar invite](https://www.behindwoods.com/tamil-movies-cinema-news-16/oscars-2023-invitation-senthil-kumar-qube-cinema.html) Behindwoods Entertainment site ❌🟥 ❌ ❌ Fails WP:RS. Promotional tone. Not usable.
7 [BusinessWorld – SMPTE fellow](https://www.businessworld.in/article/V-Senthil-Kumar-Elected-As-SMPTE-Fellow/24-01-2024-503226/) BusinessWorld Business press ✅🟨 ✅ ❌ Possibly based on press release. Lacks depth.
8 YourStory (previously cited) YourStory Startup site ❌🟥 ❌ ❌ Fails RS criteria. Avoided due to blacklisting.

Clearly fails GNG and NPROFESSOR. Thilsebatti (talk) 18:47, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rishabh Kashyap

[edit]
Rishabh Kashyap (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 singer, fails wp:NMUSIC, No SIGCOV, just routine coverage. Created by a sock. Zuck28 (talk) 14:01, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Meghan Andrews

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Meghan Andrews (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)

Completely unsourced, horrifically written (seems AI-ish) and seems like a COI violation. 750h+ 13:39, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, even if she were to meet NBIO this is so badly written and overly promotional we'd be as well starting over per WP:TNT. CoconutOctopus talk 15:02, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as doesn't meet WP:NBASIC. I can find multiple sources that mention Andrews, mostly in reviews of stage productions, but not a single source that provides the tiniest bit of biographical content. Schazjmd (talk) 18:12, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Deanne Panday

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Deanne Panday (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) View AfD

WP:RUNOFTHEMILL fitness trainer with no significant achievements and no WP:SIGCOV. Sources are mostly, passing mentions, routine coverage, interviews and gossips around her notable relatives. The article was created by a blocked SPA. Zuck28 (talk) 12:33, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Authors, Health and fitness, Nepal, India, Delhi, Maharashtra, and Scotland. Zuck28 (talk) 12:33, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep: As I stated in the previous nomination, the subject clearly meets the requirements of WP:GNG by receiving significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources. Notable examples include a detailed articles in DNA (300+ words), an article by Time of India (350+ words), Business Standard, NDTV, Hindustan Times, and MidDay, among others. These are independent, reliable secondary sources that provide substantial detail about her career, publications, and public influence, not mere name-drops or trivial mentions. As WP:GNG states: 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. In this case, multiple substantial articles from mainstream publications combine to satisfy the notability criteria. Therefore, the subject meets both WP:GNG and WP:BASIC. GSS 💬 14:51, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I can’t see your comment on the previous nomination. Did you participate in the last AFD?
    This DNA article you mentioned is non-bylined promotional article to advertise her personal training service.
    The Times of India article is also clearly advertorial piece with a disclaimer "Disclaimer: This article was produced on behalf of Life Health Foods by Times Internet’s Spotlight team."
    Business standard article is a book review without the name of the reviewer, clear promotion.
    NDTV article is more focused on the Book and Salman Khan, not the subject of the article.
    The Hindustan Times article is about the opinions of multiple people, and she got trivial coverage, fails Wp:SIGCOV.
    midday article is just a photo gallery, without any critical assessment of her career.
    This proves the article fails wp:GNG and Wp:SIGCOV both. Zuck28 (talk) 15:09, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Respectfully, I did participate in the previous AfD, but regardless, notability is determined based on policy and the quality of sources, not continuity of participants. Regarding the sources: while it's fair to assess for promotional tone or disclaimers, dismissing all coverage as non-notable misapplies WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. The DNA India article, which is over 300 words, discusses her career, influence, and clientele. The absence of an author byline does not disqualify its reliability or editorial status, as many editorial articles are unsigned unless marked as sponsored. As for the Business Standard article, it was written by journalist Asmita Aggarwal (credited by name), so the claim that it lacks one is factually incorrect. The article engages directly with her book and fitness philosophy, not simply as a product plug but in a substantive profile format. The NDTV piece, while it includes Salman Khan, is centered around Deanne Panday’s book launch and includes her quotes and ideas this qualifies as non-trivial coverage. Similarly, the Hindustan Times and Mid-Day articles offer independent mentions. Per WP:GNG, notability is assessed holistically. If depth in any one source is limited, multiple independent sources may be considered collectively. In addition to the previously mentioned sources, here are more in-depth, independent articles that further support her notability and provide substantial coverage suitable for expanding the article; Economic Times, India Today, HT, Indian Express, HT. In my view, these sources align with the requirements under WP:GNG and provide further opportunity to expand the article. GSS 💬 16:12, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I would add that the Salman Khan reference is not a counter argument but perhaps the opposite, as it would ultimately demonstrate her importance as celebrities' fitness/well-being coach (as claimed), and thus the importance of keeping the article. Metamentalist (talk) 13:14, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Metamentalist, Almost every celebrity is associated with some fitness/ wellness coach, according to your understanding does that make all of those coaches notable? Just because they’re associated with celebrities? See Wp:NOTINHERITED. Zuck28 (talk) 13:32, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    She has been associated with more than one, and has produced work in different media (books and DVDs) on the matter, she's not the "average" wellness coach. Metamentalist (talk) 16:52, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of Bulgarian film directors

[edit]
List of Bulgarian film directors (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 fails WP:NLIST. A before did not return any reliable and independent sources. Otr500 (talk) 07:00, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

David Dillehunt

[edit]
David Dillehunt (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)

Poorly sourced article, which is also filled with promotional clutter and unnecessary external links. A WP:BEFORE shows that the subject is somewhat notable, but coverage from reliable sources is clearly lacking. Fails WP:BIO and WP:NDIRECTOR. CycloneYoris talk! 22:35, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, CycloneYoris. I am the subject of this article and I disagree that notability fails Wikipedia standards in that regard. I am aware that this article was created nearly 20 years ago. It appears that the citation quality is lacking, but the projects themselves rise to the national and international level which is required in those standards. I would propose that these poor quality citations be corrected instead of article deletion. 64.96.70.108 (talk) 00:13, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For this article to be kept - you can assist by providing links to where you or your works have achieved WP:SECONDARY coverage. This may include local/regional/national press coverage or critical reviews. ResonantDistortion 08:51, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for this clarification. I just overhauled the page to remove the aforementioned promotional clutter and unnecessary external links. Citations have been modified per Wiki guidelines and secondary coverage has been properly linked. Dndlive (talk) 13:55, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment: - I read the NPR review and it's brutal. The Rotten Tomatoes sources are, well, rotten tomatoes. Be careful what you ask for. As I've written before, sometimes it's only the bad reviews that prove notability, while the puff pieces are just the deprecation of media in an age of corporate budget cuts. Again, are you sure that you want notoriety? I mean, really? Bearian (talk) 16:19, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Bearian. I like your comment, it's quite funny. That piece is a brutal but honest review and I appreciate that someone with NPR took the time to assess the film. As an artist, I take the good with the bad. Notoriety remains subjective – but I value the global reach of my projects, whether viewers like them or not. 64.96.70.108 (talk) 16:27, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would propose to keep this article. The subject is notable and passes WP:BIO and WP:NDIRECTOR. The article has been cleaned up and revised to address the aforementioned issues, including WP:SECONDARY sources. Dndlive (talk) 14:31, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment: Just want to note that the user above has an undisclosed conflict of interest with the subject of this article. @Dndlive: what relationship do you have with the subject in question, and is he paying you to edit here? CycloneYoris talk! 20:16, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
CycloneYoris: I don't believe I have a COI with this subject. I'm a fan of his "You Can't Do That on Film" documentary, but I've voluntarily updated the page for years out of respect to the filmmaker. I'm a freelance graphic designer and I'm not receiving any compensation for these updates. I tried to create a page for his rock band as well by sourcing details from the web, but I recognize the band currently fails WP:BAND and WP:MUSICBIO. My apologies for any confusion. Dndlive (talk) 12:46, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Adib Sobhani

[edit]
Adib Sobhani (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)

No evidence of notability. Sources appear to be routine coverage, and there isn't much evidence that subject warrants a standalone article. Fails: WP:GNG. Also possible WP:PE. CycloneYoris talk! 19:29, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Meena Menon

[edit]
Meena Menon (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)

Can't find reliable secondary sources that are talking about this Indian voice actor. BEFORE searches turned up unreliable user-generated sources, many of which just seem to copy this Wikipedia article. This article used to have a single reference: a dead link to Sugar Mediaz's profile on her (obviously a primary source since she works there) and now has absolutely no references. Doesn't seem to satisfy GNG ApexParagon (talk) 16:08, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nandiki Gangadhar Reddy

[edit]
Nandiki Gangadhar Reddy (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)

Seems to be a WP:PROMO article about someone that does not pass the WP:GNG David Palmer//cloventt (talk) 04:35, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Shanaya Kapoor

[edit]
Shanaya Kapoor (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:NACTOR. The article keeps getting redirected and restored. Rzvas (talk) 10:46, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kyra(UJ) (talk)

Assessment for some sources mentioned in the article – Shanaya Kapoor
Source Reliable Secondary Source? Coverage Depth Wikipedia Use
[Indulge Express](https://www.indulgexpress.com/...) ✔️ Yes 🟡 Moderate ✔️
[The Hindu](https://www.thehindu.com/...) ✔️ Yes ✔️ In-depth ✅
[SCMP](https://www.scmp.com/...) ✔️ Yes 🟡 Moderate ✔️
[Hindustan Times](https://www.hindustantimes.com/...) ✔️ Yes 🟢 In-depth ✅
[IndiaTimes](https://indiatimes.com/...) ✔️ Yes 🟢 In-depth ✅
[Indian Express](https://indianexpress.com/...) ✔️ Yes 🟡 Moderate ✔️
[Bollywood Hungama](https://www.bollywoodhungama.com/...) ⚠️ Use with caution 🟡 Moderate ⚠️

Stella Udeze

[edit]
Stella Udeze (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)

No evidence of notability. Fails WP:NACTRESS. CycloneYoris talk! 09:03, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Luke Roessler

[edit]
Luke Roessler (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)

Promotional, fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. Sources in article do not show significant coverage; only one primarily focused on him is WP:IMDB (WP:BEFORE didn't turn anything up either). GoldRomean (talk) 19:04, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hassan Jafry

[edit]
Hassan Jafry (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 social media influencer. Fails GNG. Thilsebatti (talk) 02:49, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - per nom and above comment. I just couldn't find a single thing really.
Dahawk04 Talk 💬 21:25, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Brenda Vongova

[edit]
Brenda Vongova (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. References either do not provide WP:SIGCOV or are not WP:INDEPENDENT. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 09:25, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Music, and Canada. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 09:25, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep. Brenda Vongova meets WP:BIO and WP:CREATIVE criteria for notability. She has:
    • Founded the UN Chamber Music Society, which has performed at the UN General Assembly and Carnegie Hall;
    • Collaborated with international institutions such as the New York Philharmonic, UNESCO, and the Abu Dhabi Festival;
    • Been profiled by reputable media sources including *Vogue*, *Newsweek*, *GRAMMY.com*, and *JNS*;
    • Worked as a high-level UN civil servant in the Executive Office of the Secretary-General;
    • Produced concerts and events in observance of UN-recognized days such as Holocaust Remembrance Day and World Arabic Language Day.
    Her artistic and institutional impact has been recognized independently and internationally, establishing clear WP:SIGCOV and WP:INDEP coverage. The article can be improved with more inline citations and formatting, but the subject is clearly notable. MaddieBerry (talk) 10:07, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Working as a civil servant is an office job... Newsweek is not a reliable source. The rest of the comments suggest notability, but we have no sourcing in reliable sources. Oaktree b (talk) 13:45, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Bands and musicians, and Women. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:04, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment in support of the nomination, here's my source assessment, which concludes that zero of the sources contribute to WP:GNG:
Source assessment table prepared by User:Curb Safe Charmer
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
No Written by Vongova Yes No Not *about* Vongova ✘ No
No Written by Vongova Yes No Not *about* Vongova ✘ No
No Was a member Yes No Just an entry in the list of performers ✘ No
Yes Yes No Just a mention: "Attendees will enjoy a performance by the UN Chamber Music Society (Artistic Director, Brenda Vongova)" ✘ No
No The subject is the president of the organization Yes Yes Five paragraph profile of the subject ✘ No
No The subject was interviewed for this article Yes Yes The subject tells the interviewer about her involvement with the UN Chamber Music Society and her work as a pianist ✘ No
No The subject works for the UN Yes No Subject is listed as assistant to the Spokesperson under the teams tab ✘ No
Yes Yes No Listed as a performer at the concert ✘ No
Yes Yes No Listed as a performer at the concert ✘ No
No The subject works for the UN Yes No Listed as a performer at the concert ✘ No
Yes No Listed as a performer at the concert ✘ No
Yes No One paragraph mentioning Vongova's 'Bumbum Lift' exercise ✘ No
No The subject works for the UN Yes No In the running order for the event, "remarks will also be delivered by Brenda Vongova, President and Artistic Director of the UN Movie Society" ✘ No
No Vongová has clearly been involved in this event Yes No Video features her; mention "Organised by the United Nations Movie Society (whose president, Brenda Vongová studied at Central)" ✘ No
No On the subject's own website Yes No Page of adverts by various brands collaborating with Vongova ✘ No
No The blogger has known Vongova for years and is their personal fitness guru No Personal blog No five paragraphs describing a fitness routine developed by Vongova ✘ 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}}.

Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 12:23, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Osagie Elegbe

[edit]
Osagie Elegbe (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 GNG and references provided are dead links. Uncle Bash007 (talk) 16:24, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) Old-AgedKid (talk) 14:17, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Árpád Ajtony

[edit]
Árpád Ajtony (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)

Lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. Zuck28 (talk) 14:01, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Anushka Kaushik

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Anushka Kaushik (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)

Lesser-known actress with insignificant and non lead roles in multiple projects. Fails Wp:NACTOR. Appears to be a case of Wp:TOOSOON. Zuck28 (talk) 12:11, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not enough articles for notability. 🄻🄰 14:30, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:54, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:13, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kewal Garg

[edit]
Kewal Garg (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 enough Wp:SIGCOV. Only routine coverage and non-bylined PR articles are available as sources. Zuck28 (talk) 10:14, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: All of the sources are promotional articles. 🄻🄰 14:40, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Bunty Singh

[edit]
Bunty Singh (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)

All the sources are about his death. SIGCOV: Not Found, Fails NACTOR, GNG and ANYBIO. Zuck28 (talk) 16:47, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 17:30, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Brent Chalem

[edit]
Brent Chalem (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)

Under WP:GNG and WP:PROF, this does not warrant a standalone article. Brent Chalem was a minor child actor with supporting roles in 1980s TV and a part in _The Monster Squad_. Aside from a 1997 LA Times obituary, there is no independent coverage, interviews, or critical analysis. Icem4k (talk) 20:54, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 19:04, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Maksud Hossain

[edit]
Maksud Hossain (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)

Searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources to support meeting WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 20:05, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 20:30, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Marudhu Pandiyan

[edit]
Marudhu Pandiyan (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:NFILMMAKER and WP:GNG. The 1st, 2nd, and 3rd references in the article are reviews about the film. LKBT (talk) 12:34, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 18:03, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kamal Hosni

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

This article is about someone who acted in one movie and nothing else. Seems too personal of an article with barely any real information on the individual. GamerPro64 05:24, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Agent 007 (talk) 09:16, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rosalind Ross (writer)

[edit]
Rosalind Ross (writer) (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)

Half of the sources referenced in the article are tabloid-style sources listing supposed "facts" about Mel Gibson's girlfriend. Notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. She has received no coverage demonstrating her own notability in WP:RS. Aŭstriano (talk) 20:14, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@The Film Creator: Although I am not necessarily disagreeing with you (per below), note that the guideline article includes the caveat: "conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included.". Bungle (talk • contribs) 18:42, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, while I am unconvinced that the subject has a sufficient amount of WP:SIGCOV, and some of the existing citations are of questionable quality (like the legit.ng source), i'm inclined to think she may pass WP:FILMMAKER guideline on the basis of point 3:
"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);"
However, that does not mean that the subject can be given a free pass if they do not also meet WP:GNG, which I am not yet wholly convinced by. I also searched contemporary newspaper archives with little discussing her independently. Either way, I am on the fence, but leaning weak keep. Bungle (talk • contribs) 18:42, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 20:49, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment: Here's another film person whose biggest work was bombed by the critics - we're taking 42% from Rotten Tomatoes. Bad reviews can make a person notable, but is that and boyfriend to a notorious antisemite what she really wants? Bearian (talk) 19:42, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Clancy O'Connor

[edit]
Clancy O'Connor (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:NACTOR. Credits are far too skimpy. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:24, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 01:30, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Suzan Mutesi

[edit]
Suzan Mutesi (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)

No real notability as an actress, author or fashion designer. No significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. References are mostly tabloids, social networks or IMDb. — Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 00:10, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Keep.
The article has been significantly improved to meet Wikipedia's General Notability Guidelines through the inclusion of independent, reliable sources. Suzan Mutesi has received notable coverage in international and national media outlets such as Vogue,1 NY Post2 and Heart London Magazine.3 She has appeared in Australian films such as Carmen & Bolude4 and 'Ruby’s Choice,5 and has television appearance in The Challenge: Australia6 and Heartbreak High.7

She also authored books including The Immigrant That Found Her Unapologetic Voice8 and Unapologetically Black: Afro Sisters.9 She has received several awards, including African Designer of the Year (2012),1011 and Afro-Australia Music and Movie Awards in 2014.1213

These references demonstrate significant coverage of her career and public impact.

Tagsjunta (talk) 18:23, 13 July 2025 (UTC)— Tagsjunta (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
As an author, her books have sold poorly and are independently published. There are no reviews of them. The only sources are not independent, since they are listed as the books themselves.
As an actress she has had small roles in minor productions. "The person has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions" is the guideline (see WP:NACTOR).
The New York Post, Heart London Magazine and the Daily Mail are not reliable sources (see WP:NYPOST and WP:DAILYMAIL).
Those awards are local or have very low notability. — Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 00:24, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your reply. However, your concerns about reliability and notability appear to overlook several points that align with WP:GNG and WP:BIO.
1. Reliable Sources: While you mention the NY Post, Daily Mail, and Heart London Magazine as unreliable, several independent and reliable sources remain:
2. Acting Notability: She has appeared in multiple notable Australian films such as Ruby's Choice, Moon Rock for Monday, and Carmen & Bolude, with Film Central Magazine covering her contributions (source). While her roles may not be leading, under WP:NACTOR, cumulative work in multiple productions can establish notability.
3. Awards and Recognition: She received awards such as African Designer of the Year in 2012 (source) and recognition from the Afro-Australia Music and Movie Awards (source, source). While regional, these awards have sustained coverage in Ugandan and Australian media.
4. Books and Authorship: While some of her books are self-published, they are covered in Vogue Australia (source), providing secondary discussion of her authorship and the cultural impact of her work.
5. Overall Coverage: The breadth of coverage across fashion, acting, and advocacy is sufficient to meet WP:GNG when assessed collectively. Notability does not require universal acclaim or commercial success, only significant coverage in independent, reliable sources.
6. Neutral Point of View: The article has been revised to follow Wikipedia’s neutral point of view, avoiding promotional or PR-style language in accordance with WP:PROMO and WP:NOTADVERTISING. The content has been rewritten to maintain an encyclopaedic tone, consistent with WP:TONE.
Therefore, I maintain that the subject passes both WP:GNG and WP:BIO, especially when coverage across multiple domains is considered. Tagsjunta (talk) 06:21, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Is this AI? duffbeerforme (talk) 12:04, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I took my time to write and decorate that.Not AI. Tagsjunta (talk) 19:41, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
PR is not independent or reliable. So that cuts out most. Vogue I've already touched on above. SMH is almost OK but is just being interviewed about the subject of the article. That's it. Cinema Australia and Film Central Magazine are variations of the same PR that only just mention her. Monitor is PR based, driven from her winning a run of the mill award, a WP:DOGBITESMAN type thing. Voice is so over the top so obvious puffed up PR. And by anonymous "Guest Contributor". Lifestyle News is her talking about herself. Do you know that paid editing must be declared? duffbeerforme (talk) 13:49, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your input. However, I respectfully disagree with your assessment that all the sources cited in the article are PR or non-independent.
Regarding the paid editing comment — I would like to clarify that I am not a paid editor, nor do I have any personal or professional relationship with the subject. I am simply a follower of Suzan Mutesi’s work and became interested in her after coming across various public sources online. I have not been paid, compensated, or engaged in any form to contribute to this article.
All of my contributions have been made with the intent to remain neutral and within the spirit of good faith editing, as is expected on Wikipedia. I genuinely believe that Wikipedia is a collaborative platform where editors are encouraged to participate and discuss improvements based on verifiable information.
Therefore, I respectfully ask that no assumptions be made about my motives. I am engaging here purely in good faith, with the sole aim of ensuring that the subject's coverage is fairly represented in line with WP:GNG and WP:BIO.
Thank you.
— Tagsjunta (talk) 18:34, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your source analysis. I'd like to add that Vogue Australia is not the same as Vogue US, Vogue France or British Vogue. Vogue Australia is published by News Corp (famous for its tabloids) under a licence from Condé Nast. By Vogue Australia's own admition they include paid press release–based interviews, photoshoots and write-ups as regular news with inadequate or no disclosure. This means Vogue Australia is not a reliable source. — Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 21:11, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your observation. Just to clarify — Vogue Australia, like other Vogue editions, provides disclaimers for sponsored content, and the cited piece was authored by an identifiable journalist, not a paid feature. Also, major outlets like The New York Times, The Guardian, and Forbes offer media kits and advertising, which is standard and doesn’t affect editorial reliability. Ultimately, reliability on Wikipedia depends on the specific article’s authorship and editorial oversight, not the outlet’s business model. Tagsjunta (talk) 06:25, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:38, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Akshay Bardapurkar

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

Sources are mostly PR and self-published. Not worthy of an article. Fails GNG. Thilsebatti (talk) 07:50, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nominator and Bearian. 🄻🄰 15:07, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: As I can see in the article, the subject has produced 7 movies (one unreleased) and one web series, so I believe the subject clearly meets WP:PRODUCER. Best! Baqi:) (talk) 13:38, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The fact of having produced seven films and a web series, on its own, meets none of the criteria at WP:PRODUCER at all, let alone clearly. I'm not saying he doesn't meet those criteria, just that it takes more than what you said about him. Largoplazo (talk) 14:35, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi @Largoplazo, Thank you for your comments. If you look at point number three under Creative professionals, I believe the subject clearly meets WP:PRODUCER. That said, if in your view the subject still doesn't meet the criteria, could you please clarify what more would be required for them to pass WP:PRODUCER? Best! Baqi:) (talk) 10:37, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    (1) You're treating point 3 as though it says, in its entirety, "The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a collective body of work." (2) Why are you asking me about "if in your view the subject still doesn't meet the criteria" when I stated very clearly "I'm not saying he doesn't meet those criteria"? I wasn't commenting on whether he meets the criteria, I was pointing out that your remarks failed to show that he does. Largoplazo (talk) 11:40, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Largoplazo: Exactly, that’s what I’m trying to understand: what more would be required for the subject to clearly meet that criterion? Baqi:) (talk) 13:25, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I can't help you further because I don't understand what part of the criterion you aren't understanding, if you read all of it, including all the parts that go beyond playing a role in co-creating a collective body of work. Largoplazo (talk) 14:47, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Agreeing with Baqi, the subject passes WP:NPRODUCER. If someone believes that the subject is non-notable, they need to prove how. It must very obviously pass the notability guidelines. Zuck28 (talk) 18:49, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It's notability that needs to be demonstrated in cases of disagreement, not non-notability. We have criteria for assessing notability, not for assessing non-notability. If it's obvious that the person meets those criteria, you ought to be able to explain how. Largoplazo (talk) 18:57, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The subject is a well-known and notable figure in Marathi cinema. He is founder of Planet Marathi, with coverage in reliable sources like Hindustan Times and others in regional languages. He clearly meets WP:NPRODUCER. Monhiroe (talk) 06:36, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    While Akshay Bardapurkar may be active in Marathi cinema, notability on Wikipedia is not based on fame or familiarity, but on meeting criteria like WP:GNG and WP:NPROF, WP:NPRODUCER, etc. The article currently lacks multiple, in-depth, independent, and reliably sourced profiles. Most sources are trivial mentions, event-based PR, or local coverage. Several sources are affiliated or self-published.
    The mere founding of a company (Planet Marathi) does not confer notability unless independent, sustained coverage exists about him—not just his projects. As it stands, he does not meet the threshold for WP:NPRODUCER. Thilsebatti (talk) 06:33, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 15:59, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Source analysis
No. Source Type Independence Reliability Notes
1 The Week – "Akshay Bardapurkar: A versatile producer..." Feature/Profile ✅ Independent ✅🟩 Reliable Reliable magazine but tone is promotional and coverage is not critical.
2 Financial Express – "Plays a pivotal role in promoting..." Passing mention ✅ Independent ✅🟩 Reliable Reliable source, but the coverage is trivial.
3 Vogue India – "Entrepreneur redefining culture..." Profile ✅ Independent ✅🟩 Reliable Glossy coverage, borderline promotional.
4 Lokmat – Award announcement ⚠️ Affiliated ✅🟩 Reliable (regional) Affiliated with Marathi cinema; routine coverage.
5 SheThePeople – Award mention ✅ Independent ⚠️🟨 Marginal Source is borderline; not considered highly reliable.
6 IMDb ❌ Self-published ❌🟥 Unreliable Not considered reliable per WP:USERG.
7 Hindustan Times – Celebrity quote ✅ Independent ✅🟩 Reliable Only includes a quote, not about the subject.
8 Maharashtra Times – event coverage ⚠️ Semi-affiliated ✅🟩 Reliable Not in-depth or significant.
9 ABP Majha – launch event ⚠️ Semi-affiliated ✅🟩 Reliable Source is routine and local.
10 YouTube (interviews) ❌ Self-published ❌🟥 Unreliable Fails both WP:RS and WP:INDY.
11 Twitter ❌ Self-published ❌🟥 Unreliable Not usable as source.
12 Indian Express – Film mention ✅ Independent ✅🟩 Reliable Not focused on Bardapurkar, passing role.
13 Mint – business event ✅ Independent ✅🟩 Reliable Brief reference in larger business context.
14 Loksatta – press event ⚠️ Affiliated ✅🟩 Reliable Routine event coverage.
15 Sakal Times – business feature ⚠️ Local independent ⚠️🟨 Marginal Short, low-depth.
16 YourStory ❌ Not reliable ❌🟥 Unreliable Blacklisted per WP:RELIABLE.
17 DNA India ✅ Independent ✅🟩 Reliable Passing mention, not substantial.
18 Mid-Day – interview ✅ Independent ⚠️🟨 Marginal Interview-based, borderline reliability.
19 CineBlitz ⚠️ Semi-affiliated ⚠️🟨 Marginal Considered low-tier entertainment media.
20 India Today – cultural feature ✅ Independent ✅🟩 Reliable One-time event highlight.
21 Business World – award list ✅ Independent ⚠️🟨 Marginal Non-substantive inclusion in a listicle.

All the sources are routine mentions, affiliated coverage, or lack in-depth, critical treatment. The subject don't have independent coverage and fails WP:GNG. Thilsebatti (talk) 06:31, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I gently remind the good reader that for BLPs, the burden of proof remains on the proponents of keeping the article. We've gotten into lots of trouble in the past with poorly sourced BLPs, including in India, where last year the government literally tried to shut down Wikipedia, and even now the wealthy and powerful want to make us bankrupt. So sadly we must self-censor. Bearian (talk) 14:37, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I believe we're debating only the subject's independent notability here. Has anyone here questioned the article's factuality? The Indian government's threats are over what it considers to be defamatory or uncomplimentary statements, not over the presence of articles on topics the government deems not to be notable. Largoplazo (talk) 14:55, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

AAFT

[edit]
AAFT (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)

A promotional article about a non-notable institute. The article is heavily based on unreliable and primary sources. No secondary reliable source available to establish Wp:SIGCOV, just passing mentions and trivial mentions.

If we remove, press releases, primary sources and blogs, merely passing mentions are available in actual news portals or wp:RS. Fails Wp:NSCHOOL, WP:NORG and WP:GNG. The institute's founder's article was also deleted recently. Zuck28 (talk) 09:03, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 11:10, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tyler Butterworth

[edit]
Tyler Butterworth (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)

no indication this passes gng or nactor Molikog (talk) 19:06, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 19:59, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ariel Alexandria Davis

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

Delete or redirect to The Haunted Mansion (2003 film). Per her IMDB page, her only prominent role appears to be in Haunted Mansion. She otherwise has five guest roles (only two of which are named characters) and a recurring role on Everybody Hates Chris. This AfD really comes down to whether appearing in portions of six of the first 23 episodes of an 88 episode sitcom is a significant role under under WP:ENT AND whether the word multiple under WP:ENT really means two total non-guest roles. My belief is no, appearing in Haunted Mansion and Everybody Loves Chris does not make the subject "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded." This would be a similar outcome as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emmy Clarke and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dee Dee Davis. Mpen320 (talk) 18:37, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 20:48, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Maina Wa Ndung'u

[edit]
Maina Wa Ndung'u (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)

Minor actor, either coi or upe editor. Fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 19:55, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Most of our Kenyan artists have a limited and often unreliable online presence, which makes it challenging to gather sufficient citations. If deletion becomes the default solution, many African artists will remain unrepresented on Wikipedia, which goes against the very goal of inclusivity. We kindly urge you to take this context into consideration. SeanTwice (talk) 07:54, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you, SeanTwice, but upon considering the sources presented it appears this individual doesn't meet general notability. PK650 (talk) 04:37, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 21:58, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. User:SeanTwice and User:PK650, are you making a Keep argument here?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 20:57, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Vicky Huang

[edit]
Vicky Huang (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)

Unreferenced WP:BLP of an actress with no clear evidence of passing WP:NACTOR. As always, an actress is not automatically entitled to have an article just because there's a list of performances in it, and instead we have to see evidence of WP:GNG-worthy media coverage about her and her performances to deem her notable.
This is completely unreferenced, however, and the roles it lists were almost entirely supporting or bit parts rather than major starring roles — in either film or television, the only clear leading role named here is a short film rather than a feature or a television series, and the stage roles can't exactly be notability-making ones if they're so poorly sourceable that you're stuck denoting them solely as "lead vs. ensemble" and can't even name the specific characters she played.
Even on a ProQuest search, I'm finding virtually no useful sourcing that could be added: almost every hit I get is for either a real estate broker or a customer in a bridal shop, neither of whom can be verified as the same person as this at all, and the only hits I get that are clearly for an actress are glancing namechecks of her existence in theatrical calendar listings and an article about a photographer she once posed for rather than substantive coverage about her or any of her performances in anything.
Nothing stated here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt her from having to pass GNG on much better sourcing than I've been able to locate. Bearcat (talk) 21:03, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Old-AgedKid (talk) 07:02, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:31, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of Cairo Higher Institute of Cinema people

[edit]
List of Cairo Higher Institute of Cinema people (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)

Redundant to Category:Cairo Higher Institute of Cinema alumni Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 21:15, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • It has different information because some of the people are different professions (e.g., directors, actors, writers), and it is easier to look up alumni/faculty by profession from the list. Also some people are on the list who are not in the category. Also some people in the list are faculty members and would not be included in the alumni category. static shakedown ʕ •ᴥ•ʔ 21:44, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be willing to see the expansion of the category to include those people. I think a category is a better fit here unless there is secondary information about each person in the list that is necessary to understanding the group as a whole. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 21:57, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep There are a ton of lists that can be found through categories, like List of California Institute of Technology people. I don't see why this one would be an exception. User01938 (talk) 23:28, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Ganesha811 (talk) 21:40, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 22:08, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Their point was that this type of list exists for many universities and institutions of higher learning as a separate page, not that this institute is similar to Caltech static shakedown ʕ •ᴥ•ʔ 11:02, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mohit Marwah

[edit]
Mohit Marwah (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 actor. Lacks Wp:SIGCOV. Most of the sources are either passing mentions or non-bylined promotional articles. Wp:NEWSORGINDIA. His acting career consists of two films in which he has non-lead roles, and no award nominations or wins, failing Wp:NACTOR.

His additional credits include non-notable short films and music videos.

He received some press coverage due to his connection with the Ambani and Kapoor families and his marriage but notability is not inherited. Zuck28 (talk) 12:12, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 05:50, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Reopening and relisting, in my individual capacity as an uninvolved admin, per WP:REOPEN.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 21:23, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Passes NACTOR through roles in Fugly and Raag Desh. Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 13:21, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    There are no sources to verify that these roles are significant to pass NACTOR. Zuck28 (talk) 14:25, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The reviews in RS listed on the articles for both films consistently mention Marwah. I would consider this enough to verify that his roles in the films are significant enough for NACTOR. Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 09:44, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Source Analysis.
    • Source 1 Unreliable WP:ICTFSOURCES
    • Source 2 passing mention
    • Source 3 passing mention
    • Source 4 Unreliable WP:ICTFSOURCES
    • Source 5 Unreliable WP:ICTFSOURCES
    • Source 6 Promotional for debut release. Short article on who subject is related to and how the subject came to limelight before debut.
    • Source 7 Interview. Non-Independent of the subject.
    • Source 8 Same promotional article with same content as Source 6. Same publishers.
    • Source 9 about Subject's wedding
    • Source 10 passing mention.
    • Source 11 page no available.
    • Source 12 Non-Independent of the subject,
    • Source 13 Same as source 6
    • Source 14 article is about Akshay Marwah. Nothing on the subject.
    • Source 15 Unreliable WP:ICTFSOURCES
    • Source 16 promotional article about the subject being launched in debut Fugly.
    • Source 17 passing mention
    • Source 18 passing mention
    • Source 19 Unreliable WP:ICTFSOURCES
    • Source 20 just an image of subject dressed in Dior Homme
    • Source 21 images of subject in fashion.
    • Source 22 subject walk the ramp for Fashion designer.
    • Source 23, Non-independent of the subject as new face of 'Provogue'. RangersRus (talk) 00:45, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin McGarry (actor)

[edit]
Kevin McGarry (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)

Semi-advertorialized WP:BLP of an actor, not properly referenced as passing WP:NACTOR. As always, actors are not automatically entitled to Wikipedia articles just because they've had acting roles -- the notability test doesn't reside in listing acting roles, it resides in the quality and depth and volume of WP:GNG-worthy reliable source coverage that can be shown about him and his performances to support the article with.
But this is referenced principally to directory entries, podcast interviews, one of those garbage "celebrity net worth" PR profiles and content on the self-published production website of the show that constitutes his most potentially notable role, none of which is support for notability at all.
What there is for proper media coverage is one People magazine article that's focusing on his wedding rather than on the significance of his acting, an article in Us Weekly (which per WP:RSP is considered less reliable than People, and thus doesn't count as a strong GNG builder) that's doing the exact same thing, and a piece of "local guy does stuff" in the community news hyperlocal of his own hometown -- which doesn't add up to enough coverage to get him over GNG by itself if the article's sourcing is 85 per cent unreliable junk otherwise.
Just having been in television shows and films is not an automatic notability freebie without significantly better sourcing than this. Also there may be a WP:COI here, as the article was created by an WP:SPA with no history of contributing on any other topic. Bearcat (talk) 14:27, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – I believe this article should be kept. Kevin McGarry is a notable Canadian actor best known for major roles on series like When Calls the Heart and Heartland, as well as in Hallmark Channel films. The article includes multiple reliable secondary sources, including Entertainment Tonight, Good Housekeeping, TV Insider, and Hallmark Channel. He meets Wikipedia’s notability criteria for actors through multiple significant roles and national media coverage. SU5MSJ (talk) 01:30, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Hallmark Channel's own self-published website about itself is not reliable or WP:GNG-building sourcing for the purposes of establishing the notability of an actor in Hallmark Channel programming, because it isn't independent coverage from a third party. TV Insider is a directory entry, not reliable coverage in GNG-building media or books. The Good Housekeeping and Entertainment Tonight sources you added, in an incorrect format that couldn't stay in the article, were both dead links that didn't lead to the content that you claimed they were leading to, but to "page not found" errors — and according to the headlines, neither of them appeared to be about Kevin McGarry, since they both pertained to something or somebody else, so even if they could be replaced with correct links they still wouldn't ensure Kevin McGarry's notability just because his name was in them. We're not looking for just any source you can find with his name in it, we're looking for sources that represent substantive coverage, written by journalists, in which Kevin McGarry is the primary subject of the source. Bearcat (talk) 19:29, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Response Regarding Kevin McGarry Article
Collapsed LLM text
Thank you for your feedback and for reviewing the article.
I understand and appreciate the importance of adhering to Wikipedia’s general notability guidelines (GNG) and the need for reliable, independent, third-party sources. I’d like to respectfully address the concern by pointing out the following:
  1. Comparable Articles Exist: Kevin McGarry’s article structure, content, and sourcing are consistent with other existing articles about Hallmark actors, including castmates from When Calls the Heart such as Andrea Brooks, Kayla Wallace, and Pascale Hutton. These articles also rely heavily on press coverage tied to Hallmark programming, entertainment outlets, and interviews in niche media, which is often the only type of coverage available for actors primarily known through cable network franchises.
  2. Multiple Roles and National Recognition: McGarry has had major recurring and lead roles on two long-running series—Heartland and When Calls the Heart—both broadcast in the U.S. and Canada, with strong international fan followings. His performances have been discussed and featured in interviews, podcast appearances, and video content, some of which are cited from Entertainment Tonight, Good Housekeeping, and TV Insider—all of which are considered credible sources when properly cited and linked. I acknowledge the links may have been outdated or formatted incorrectly, and I am actively working on correcting them.
  3. Substantive Coverage: During When Calls the Heart Season 13, McGarry was the subject of over 5 million views’ worth of fan-driven and media content across platforms. He has also been featured in independent interviews such as those on Suspenders Unbuttoned Media, which—while not a legacy outlet—does meet standards of original reporting and interview content.
  4. Willingness to Improve: I am committed to improving the sourcing. If you could advise on acceptable examples of substantive coverage that would help retain this article, I’d be grateful. I understand that passing GNG means more than name-drops—it requires in-depth, article-length pieces where McGarry is the focus, and I’m actively compiling those now.
Best regards,
User:SU5MSJ SU5MSJ (talk) 14:18, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Fan driven" and "interview" content does not establish notability, and neither does any number of views on any platform. We we require journalist-written content about him (which is not the same thing as content that happens to mention his name in the process of being about something else) in reliable sources, not social networking posts or interviews in which he's speaking about himself in the first person. Bearcat (talk) 20:44, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:51, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I support keeping the article. Kevin McGarry meets the criteria outlined in WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. He is the primary subject of multiple independent, reliable, secondary sources. Recent coverage includes: • Good Housekeeping (feature article about McGarry and his career) • Women’s World (profile piece focused on McGarry) • Us Weekly (relationship timeline and career discussion) • Cinemablend (interview discussing his role in When Calls the Heart)

These are all journalist-written, independent pieces that provide substantive coverage in which McGarry is the main focus—not just mentioned in passing. His leading roles in When Calls the Heart, Heartland, and numerous Hallmark films establish his notability as a prominent TV actor.

Additionally, I’ve been actively working on properly formatting and sourcing the article in accordance with Wikipedia’s standards. As this is my first article, I truly appreciate the feedback and guidance from more experienced editors, and I will continue to add sources and improve the article as I learn. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SU5MSJ (talk • contribs) 18:37, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: for policy based arguments
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:37, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for relisting the discussion. I’d like to reiterate that this article has been significantly improved since its initial nomination. It now includes multiple reliable, independent sources that provide substantive coverage of Kevin McGarry’s career—not just passing mentions.
Sources include interviews and articles from: TV Insider, The Toronto Star, The Kincardine Independent, Cineplex Magazine and Cinemablend
These publications meet the standards of WP:RS and support notability under WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. McGarry has had starring roles in long-running series such as When Calls the Heart and Heartland, and has been a leading actor in over a dozen Hallmark films. His theatre and early TV work has also been documented using third-party sources.
I’ve also taken care to properly format the citations, avoid non-reliable sources (e.g., IMDb, social media), and link the article to related Wikipedia entries to avoid orphaning.
I appreciate the opportunity to clarify and improve the article as I am new to this. I welcome any additional feedback to ensure it meets Wikipedia’s policies and standards. SU5MSJ (talk) 18:15, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I also modeled this page after other similar actors with similar credits and citations listed here on WIKI. SU5MSJ (talk) 18:23, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
please be mindful of badgering the discussion @SU5MSJ and let others' voices be heard. Star Mississippi 00:52, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It’s not my intention to badger, I thought I was encouraged to respond and continue to improve the article. Thanks for letting me know, I truly appreciate it. 2605:59C8:2136:4310:5CA2:FADC:1297:17FB (talk) 01:48, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As already noted above, TV Insider is not a reliable or notability-building source — it's a directory entry, not third party coverage in media, so it doesn't count as a notability builder. Interviews also do not count as support for notability — they can be used for additional verification of facts after passage of GNG has already been covered off by stronger sourcing, but since they represent the subject talking about himself rather than being talked about by other people, they don't count as data points toward the initial question of whether the person has passed GNG in the first place. Bearcat (talk) 13:29, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ador Azad

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Ador Azad (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)

Likely WP:TOOSOON but fails WP:NACTOR. A lot of announcements on upcoming projects (non of which are notable for Wikipedia), but nothing in-depth about the subject himself outside of non-bylined churnalism and promotional content that mirrors what fall under WP:NEWSORGINDIA. CNMall41 (talk) 17:14, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep it: Recently, he is a very popular and notable actor in Bangladesh, about this topic covered in the (Acting career) section. This article has been passed WP:NACTOR for the (Acting career) section. Moreover, this article has been accepted into the AFC draft submission. – Aqsis Bey (talk) 13:00, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 19:09, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
First, see WP:HOUNDING. Fewer than 50 edits and yet you show up at numerous AfD discussions with different topics, filed on different dates, etc. Only one connection to all of these which is me. Second, see WP:ATA. Third, there is no inherent notability from WP:NACTOR based on roles (see discussion here).--CNMall41 (talk) 16:50, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh wow, I didn't even notice you until now, trust me, I'm not exactly out here hounding you. Don't flatter yourself. lol. Secondly, I understand that The person has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions meets the notability under WP:NACTOR. If that’s incorrect, feel free to correct me, preferably without the snide tone. Gepeas (talk) 17:58, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not flattered. Pretty duckish when new accounts are created to HOUND. You wouldn't be the first. To appease your vote, I will reiterate what I said in my third point above. Yes, you are incorrect. Simply having the roles does not guarantee notability. I would again suggest you read the discuss I linked to (or don't). --CNMall41 (talk) 18:03, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know how you came up with this hounding idea. Out of the 11 AfD discussions I'm involved in, only two came up with your name. Anyway, I don't see any reason to continue this discussion with your dogmatic mindset. Gepeas (talk) 18:21, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 20:26, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Don't see any source which can be regarded as significant and reliable. WP:TOOSOON and FAIL WP:ACTOR. - Rht bd (talk) 17:27, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - As per the actor has done some notable films.

—ApurboWiki2024 (talk) 09:28, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:VW. "the actor has done some notable films." Which films, what roles, what sources verify, where is the significant coverage documenting such? There is NO guideline that says someone is notable for having "done some notable films."--CNMall41 (talk) 17:35, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nicole Giannino

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Nicole Giannino (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; I did some searching and was not able to find significant coverage (either for her acting career or her ice hockey career) in any reliable source Joeykai (talk) 23:36, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Svartner (talk) 03:53, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:59, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Any more supporters for Draftification?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:26, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]


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=1301736558"