Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Actors and filmmakers

WP:DSACTOR

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

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

Adding a new AfD discussion

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

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

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

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

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

Further information

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

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

Purge page cache

watch

Scan for actor AfDs

Scan for filmmaker AfDs

Actors and filmmakers

Ariel Velasco-Shaw

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

May not meet General Notability Guidelines Uncle Bash007 (talk) 09:20, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Bullshit! It has an official new website, GMA News Online. GeniusTaker (talk) 09:27, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

having a website isn't notable in 2025. Oaktree b (talk) 13:03, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Comics and animation, Disney, Philippines, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:39, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The GMA article is about all I can find for sourcing. That's not enough to show notability. The other two sources in the article aren't helpful/aren't RS. Oaktree b (talk) 13:04, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Violeta Sekuj

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

The article fails WP:NACTOR, two of the sources appear to lack significant coverage, and the other two are obituaries. This article appears to be have been translated from the Albanian-language WP without any attribution. SɱαɾƚყPαɳƚʂ22 (Ⓣⓐⓛⓚ) 22:14, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. SɱαɾƚყPαɳƚʂ22 (Ⓣⓐⓛⓚ) 22:14, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Theatre, Albania, and Massachusetts. Shellwood (talk) 22:16, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Hints that this person was notable [1], [2], but neither of these sources are enough to build an article with. I don't see enough sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 13:21, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have added a few more Albanian language references, I feel there is enough to establish basic notability. Thief-River-Faller (talk) 16:15, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kumar Saurabh

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

I can't find reliable sources that would help this subject pass wikipedia actor guidelines. Even too mucn are promotional sources, if can look closer in some articles there are no primary reliable sources available in the news article aboutt this actor. Some are secondary sources about the work. I also found the user Ajay Kumar rastogi 12 who created this Wikipedia is made many promoting articles in past. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DivitNation (talk • contribs) 08:26, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This discussion page was created without the {{afd2}} template and not transcluded to a daily log. Fixed now--I have no opinion of my own at this time. I've left a note on the nominator's talk page. --Finngall ^talk 16:10, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and India. Shellwood (talk) 17:01, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bihar and Haryana. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:36, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Juliette Danielle

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NACTOR. The references are laughable (Instagram, Facebook, passing mentions, ...). Clarityfiend (talk) 00:47, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Texas. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 00:54, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Found this in Uproxx [3], not sure that's a RS. Other sources don't seem to be and that's about the best one I found. Oaktree b (talk) 01:03, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:43, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ahaan Panday

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

(Redacted) –Inimn _(Talk) 05:06, 27 July 2025 (UTC) — Inimn (talk · contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of StayCalmOnTress (talk · contribs). [reply]

Comment I see some references in the rev history to this previously being a redirect to Saiyaara Czarking0 (talk) 05:25, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Redacted) –Inimn _(Talk) 05:38, 27 July 2025 (UTC) — Inimn (talk · contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of StayCalmOnTress (talk · contribs). [reply]

Keep does not look like a test page to me. What makes you say that? The sources indicate WP:GNG to me Czarking0 (talk) 05:26, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Redacted) –Inimn _(Talk) 05:37, 27 July 2025 (UTC) — Inimn (talk · contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of StayCalmOnTress (talk · contribs). [reply]

Keep seems pretty easy to pass GNG to me. Plenty of the sources discuss the subject independent (or semi-independently) to the movie itself. Some issues about reliability of the outlets but I don't think it's enough to completely dismiss. Juxlos (talk) 07:59, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article appears to meet Wikipedia’s general notability guideline (WP:GNG). There are multiple independent and reliable sources that cover the subject in significant depth, not merely passing mentions or press releases. While some of the coverage may be tied to the film, there are also sources that discuss the subject independently. This indicates sufficient notability under both WP:GNG and WP:ACTOR. Therefore, I support retaining the article. Softcore7 ^«☎» 09:57, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Show evidence how does the subject meets WP:NACTOR. Georgethedragonslayer (talk) 13:01, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Maharashtra. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:00, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per don't see any sources which can be regarded as significant and reliable. WP:TOOSOON and fail WP:ACTOR. – Aqsis Bey (talk) 15:10, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I would not oppose redirect to Saiyaara until the subject meets WP:NACTOR. Warina Hussain is a similar example. Koshuri ^(あ!) 11:37, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No chance that the subject meets WP:NACTOR. Georgethedragonslayer (talk) 13:01, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Publish - No need to delete everything is ok 2409:40E5:11B1:4602:BF:DBF5:A49F:EAE9 (talk) 13:06, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Restore Redr mentioned at the target so a redirect is logical, insufficient sources for a standalone right now. Of the sources in the aricle [4], [5], [6], [7], and [8] are not significant coverage, just brief commentaries on social media postings. Then [9] is about the film with passing coverage of the article subject. There is some non-trivial stuff on [10] and [11], but the first is merely a listing of previous appearances and the second is a brief personal anecdote neither coverage is "in detail" as required. Finally [12] offers the best case, it is not as detailed as its title suggests, and much of it is still about Saiyaara, but there is a plausible case for saying it counts for the purposes of GNG, though it is rather borderline. However, even if we grant the last one that is still only one source and multiple sources are needed. Redirect with the potential for later restoration as the subject could plausible become notable in the future. Encourage the use of AFC for this purpose. 204.111.137.20 (talk) 15:49, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above analysis. I am also not opposed to a redirect. Devopam (talk) 07:42, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not opposed to redirecting to Saiyaara. Honeybrowneyes (talk) 10:05, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - he's been in one film... Wait for his career to build. Aneet had been in a few projects before her debut.

19Arham (talk) 20:49, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

His career is starting now and by time passing he will get more projects even he has notable role in saaiyara then what's the matter of deletion 2409:40D5:59:4D36:8000:0:0:0 (talk) 21:27, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I guess enough citations has added acc to the amount of info given to the page no need to delete it. If you look the newcomers who debuted this year with him e.g: Ibrahim Ali Khan also had limited info but has a page so why this rule should only apply on him. Also his career just began the more he done films/webseries the page will updated accordingly. I hope you'll understand know and rather than say delete or redirect should work on the page to make it more reliable. Thank you:) User: Israrhashim29 (talk) 13:02, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: As per my knowledge the actor doing only one film with a big banner. But He is not building as an established Actor. Ofcourse We can see too many promotional articles and news sources but those not mean that he is many works as a big notable person. 90% sources are promotional for film related. It's supposed to wait for build his career as notable actor. User: DivitNation (talk) 18:17, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Although seems to pass WP:GNG, but clearly fails to satisfy WP:NACTOR. Having acting credit in the lead role of just one major successful film does not ensure notability.--BhikhariInformer (talk) 16:32, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Davis (singer)

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

No evidence of notability. A WP:BEFORE shows only limited coverage, and there's a lack of reliable sourcing on the subject. Fails WP:NACTOR. CycloneYoris ^talk! 20:00, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, United States of America, and Indiana. CycloneYoris ^talk! 20:00, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
User:CycloneYoris, this person should be listed also in the discussions for Theatre, Opera and any appropriate musical categories. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:08, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Done - Eva Ux 22:50, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Although the article is slapdash and poorly referenced, this actor has a Tony Award and has played more than half a dozen significant roles on Broadway. I don't know what your WP:BEFORE review included, but he is mentioned in lots of Google News articles here and here. Here are refs to lots of his reviews: https://benjaminjaydavis.com/press.html . Clearly notable. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:02, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Theatre. - Eva Ux 22:49, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Looks like a case of {{sources exist}} as far as notability is concerned per links by Ssilvers and my own searches. Suggest adding maintenance tags appropriately. WeWake (talk) 00:48, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Has enough notable contributions to warrant an article. Shankargb (talk) 14:22, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per above discussion, although I would prefer that sources be added before closing the debate. Normally I would just comment, without a !vote because he is a Facebook friend of a friend via actor Anthony Castellano, but it appears tenuous to me. Bearian (talk) 19:05, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – A 2003 Tony Award plus a string of principal Broadway roles covered by major industry press (e.g., The New York Times, Playbill) clearly meet WP:NACTOR and the general notability guideline. Aeon Sentinel (talk) 00:02, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

E. J. Nauzad

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

Fails Wikipedia:Notability. No significant coverage in English or Tamil [13]. All sources are passing mentions including the reviews. Redirect to Agadam. While most are praiseworthy, this review calls his work shoddy without mentioning his name. His name is not mentioned on the Guinness World Records certificate and the record has since been broken [14].

Article created by person himself? [15] DareshMohan (talk) 18:56, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and India. Shellwood (talk) 19:05, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tamil Nadu-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:01, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lacking significant coverage in reliable sources. Agadam can mention him but there is no need for a redirect for that. Ratnahastin (talk) 04:45, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Tajdari

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

Most of the info here is completely unverifiable or very dubious, e.g. the film awards, or his "championship titles" in MMA. At best he lacks notability as established by reliable sources. Fram (talk) 15:57, 25 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, Martial arts, and Iran. Fram (talk) 15:57, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – The subject of this article, Ali Tajdari, clearly meets Wikipedia's notability criteria under several guidelines:

He is a multi-time national champion in Vovinam and has represented Iran in international competitions. This satisfies WP:NATHLETE.
He has a documented professional MMA career, verified by third-party databases. This also satisfies WP:NATHLETE and confirms independent verifiability.
He has released multiple music albums, performed concerts, and has coverage in reliable media, satisfying WP:NARTIST.
He has acted in national television productions with non-trivial, recurring roles – fulfilling WP:NACTOR.
The subject’s multi-disciplinary recognition has received coverage from multiple independent and reliable sources, meeting WP:GNG.

It is important to note that this article has existed on Wikipedia for over three years and has been subject to continuous improvement and scrutiny. Notably, two of Wikipedia's most experienced and respected administrators have contributed significantly to refining this article. The fact that these senior editors have worked on it strongly suggests that the subject's notability and the article’s reliability have been thoroughly evaluated.

Given this context, the sudden nomination for deletion appears premature and lacks sufficient justification. Wikipedia's deletion policy emphasizes improvement over removal, especially for articles that have been maintained and expanded over several years.

The appropriate course here should be article improvement, not deletion. Per Wikipedia’s core values, deletion should only occur when an article is irremediably non-notable or unverifiable, which is not the case here. More sourcing and clarification can continue collaboratively.

Strongly oppose deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jijijef (talk • contribs) 16:29, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (Notified by Jijijef) - I am not convinced that GNG has been satisfied or any notability criteria. Fram pretty much summed up the issue. I don't see where enough improvement can take place for this to meet the notability guidelines due to a lack of verifiable information and a lack of reliable sources. The fact that five separate users declined this at Articles for Creation over a 35 day period on notability grounds is telling. --Super Goku V (talk) 19:34, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As noted, subject fails WP:GNG. That the article has made it this long without being nominated is not a reason to keep it. —C.Fred (talk) 21:07, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Iftekhar Rafsan

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

Article about a non-notable youtuber. Fails GNG. Thilsebatti (talk) 17:30, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Thilsebatti (talk) 17:30, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Internet, and Bangladesh. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:49, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: He is a popular media personality in Bangladesh and has a YouTube channel with over 3 million subscribers.Here Also has broad media coverage.[1][2] [3][4][5] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sajid Ahmed Nijhu (talk • contribs) 21:05, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

While the subject may be a well-known media personality in Bangladesh with a sizable YouTube following, having a large number of subscribers or general popularity does not automatically confer notability. Notability must be based on significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable secondary sources that go beyond routine interviews or brief mentions.The only good cited source is from The Business Standard which itself is a primary-style profile/interview, which, while from a reliable publication, is not enough on its own to establish encyclopedic notability under WP:NBIO or WP:CREATOR. At present, the article lacks the kind of in-depth, sustained, and critical secondary coverage required to meet Wikipedia’s notability standards.Thilsebatti (talk) 05:15, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sharif Zero

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

Does not meet GNG and most references are not talking directly about the subject. Uncle Bash007 (talk) 09:31, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

~~@Uncle Bash007 I created and wrote the article because it doesn't exist... please don't delete it and just leave it alone.... Muhd Affiq Affiqal (talk) 10:04, 24 July 2025 (UTC)~~ —sock struck by fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 19:29, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Malaysia. Shellwood (talk) 10:12, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Uncle Bash007@Shellwood hi friend, I don't know what to say but can you please not delete the article, I don't know what to do, that's why I created it, if you follow the logic of the main wikipedia (Sharif Zero) it has already been updated, I have updated it, please don't delete it... I beg you very much... Muhd Affiq Affiqal (talk) 10:23, 24 July 2025 (UTC) —sock struck by fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 19:29, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@AdobongPogi, don’t take it personal please! Wikipedia has it’s guidelines that article must meet Notability guidelines. I didn’t mark it because I want it deleted. No! Had it being it has met those requirements, no one will delete-tag the page. Hope you understand. Kindly go through the guidelines so that you’ll understand more about Wikipedia. Uncle Bash007 (talk) 11:25, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Muhd Affiq Affiqal Uncle Bash007 (talk) 11:26, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – I understand the creator's intention but unfortunately, Wikipedia requires more than effort. Mostly just a filmography list with little to no biographical content. The article doesn't meet WP:GNG, and the sources don't provide significant coverage. AdobongPogi (talk) 14:26, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@AdobongPogiWhy do you want to delete it? I'm tired of recreating everything. Please help... I'm begging you so much.... how do I undo the deletion? Try giving me an example. You said you wanted to discuss it. Try where I can explain why it can't be deleted???? Muhd Affiq Affiqal (talk) 10:45, 24 July 2025 (UTC) —sock struck by fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 19:29, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Muhd Affiq Affiqal people will vote here on either the article should be delete, keep, or merge. You can improve it if you can find reliable sources that talk direct and in depth about the subject. Uncle Bash007 (talk) 11:28, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Muhd Affiq Affiqal this isnt personal. deletion discussions are about the content and sources, not the creator. You're absolutely welcome to explain your reasoning on the article's AfD discussion. Also, you don't need to keep recreating it. If it gets deleted, you can work on improving it in your sandbox with better sources and re-submit it later through Articles for Creation (AfC). AdobongPogi (talk) 19:44, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@AdobongPogi then I will submit the article to you and update everything I want to see, can you please?... do you know how to improve the article? I submitted it but it was deleted so I had to create a new main Wikipedia article, thank you. Muhd Affiq Affiqal (talk) 11:49, 24 July 2025 (UTC) —sock struck by fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 19:29, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: doesn't seem to be any coverage of this subject as a seperate individual to his siblings -- D'n'B-📞 -- 12:39, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Steven Greenstreet

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

I had in the past spent a few cycles looking up sourcing for this without much luck, and had come back to it on and off the past few weeks on the side. WP:BEFORE--there's a veritible mountain of social media and Youtube noise for his seemingly always-online persona, but not much beyond token mentions of his role in various film projects--for example, one of the sources on the Kesha documentary just has a single passing mention of him by name. If there are WP:RS that get to necessary WP:SIGCOV depths, I haven't found them yet. It's hard to dig out data with so much social media and non-usable bio-type spam on various platforms. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 22:17, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Journalism, and United States of America. Shellwood (talk) 22:56, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:39, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: a clear WP:DIRECTOR pass, as This Divided State was reviewed in Variety, the NYT, the Seattle Times, and so on (all reviews mentioning him and his career, obviously). He also co-directed other notable films. The article probably needs trimming but he does appear to be clearly notable. - Eva Ux 22:59, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep This is a close call but he appears to clear the WP:GNG threshold. Go4thProsper (talk) 18:35, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Marianela Pereyra

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

Time to put this up. Likely paid for during development with possilikely sock edits. Person is not notable; there were a few TV appearances a decade ago but nothing of substance. Most of the article is unverified trivia or resume info. The most recent thing? Look down this silly "news" page and you'll find she is a "Resident Beach Expert", famous in Azerbaijan. Drmies (talk) 13:30, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I guess she hosted "Poker after Dark" [16], a Fox News story about how she was robbed; other than confirming the hosting duties, not helping notability. I think this is about the same person [17], appears to be fluff piece saying how she likes the beach. Even the .az source mentioned in the comment above doesn't really show notability. I don't see enough coverage to show notability. Oaktree b (talk) 13:41, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, Television, Sports, Austria, Argentina, and Maryland. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:55, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I did a WP:BEFORE search but didn’t find much beyond routine coverage. The subject fails to meet the criteria of WP:GNG. Baqi:) (talk) 15:38, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per the nominator's rationale, the subject fails to meet the standards of GNG.. Raj Shri21 (talk) 11:28, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sourcing is confined to routine primary or promotional material (e.g., a HuffPost contributor profile, ESPN press release, WPT post) and lacks the significant independent, reliable coverage required by WP:GNG, so the subject is not shown to be notable. Aeon Sentinel (talk) 01:11, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Srujana Gopal

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

I have searched for significant coverage of the subject in reliable, independent sources but could not find any that meet the requirements of WP:NBIO. The existing article relies primarily on primary sources, routine institutional mentions, or brief announcements, none of which provide the in-depth, secondary coverage necessary to establish encyclopedic notability. Thilsebatti (talk) 03:22, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, and India. Thilsebatti (talk) 03:22, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
===Srujana Gopal===

I have noticed that you have tagged the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Srujana Gopal I kindly request you to remove the deletion tag because I'm working on it. I will add more sources.
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

regards Mustafdesam (talk) 09:23, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Andhra Pradesh and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:15, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. First, let's discuss process: we never remove an AfD or notability tag just because some people are working on it. In fact, it encourages people to rescue an article. Fix the problem, then remove the tag. One can remove a proposed deletion tag, but even then it's best practices to fix the article and afterwards to ask for permission to remove the tag, as I did yesterday with Corbelled tomb. The burden of proving the notability of a biography of a living person always remains with the promoter or proponent. Substantively, there isn't significant coverage, but if you find good sources, then we can move on from there. Having a healthy debate about notability is essential for our existence; it's really important now that we are under pressure from the wealthy and powerful. Poor Mustafdesam could not have picked a worse time to make such arguments in a public forum. Bearian (talk) 08:50, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – The only coverage consists of routine, promotional pieces (e.g. a title-logo launch in The Hans India and brief items on Swatantra Live and IndustryHit) and there is no in-depth, independent sourcing that would satisfy WP:GNG or WP:ENT notability requirements. My research was not really fruitful, hence I do not really see a possibility for the subject to suddenly become notable with the improvements being made. Aeon Sentinel (talk) 04:56, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sabby Jey

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

No independent notability. REDIRECT to The Bachelor New Zealand. The entire article seems to bank on her unique ethnicity, which isn't enough for a Wikipedia article. Also she doesn't feature in the film listed (her role is unnamed well because she is isn't in the film; she could be in a deleted scene, but that doesn't add notability) and her other film is unreleased. Redirect undone in the sense of "undid major vandalism" although my edit wasn't vandalism and was WP:BOLD.

The article creator is her friend on Instagram [18]. Being a part of The Bachelor New Zealand and Ex Best Thing seems like a WP:TOOEARLY because the latter show only has 1 reliable source from The Spinoff [19] and no Wikipedia article.

A WP:BEFORE found the following sources: [20], 1 of which is about a rental dispute.

The article creator is very suspicious. My last few edits were just naming duplicate references, which the article creator did not do. Also many of the sources seem to be from small local Indian community newspapers. DareshMohan (talk) 17:19, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 July 22. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:37, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, Sri Lanka, and New Zealand. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:49, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing the test at WP:NACTOR. I'm also not seeing any WP:SIGCOV in the references I've spotchecked. The Times of India source is indeed solely about Jey, but it's effectively just a press release. Frankly, even if we overlook the questionably reliability in the other sources, "effectively a press release" applies to a majority of the references I've viewed. Even this appears to have been placed by her manager, who gets a shout-out and link to their now-deleted Wikipedia article at the end. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 18:04, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with Ed. Axel4301 (talk) 09:16, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as SIGCOV is not apparent. David Palmer//cloventt ^(talk) 20:50, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I found some more interview sources and I now thing is likely a weak keep. David Palmer//cloventt ^(talk) 22:44, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Amay Bisaya

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

See WP:ANI incident for context. Amay Bisaya might be notable but it's better to start from scratch than incorporate the LLM inputs in the article's history. --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:57, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Politicians, and Philippines. Lenticel ^(talk) 00:57, 22 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) 00:57, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep – This falls into WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. The article is decently cited, and while I cannot speak to the quality of the sources used, I can confirm that they support the claims made in the article, which negates the potential for issues related to LLM hallucinations. LLMs are only a problem when they are wrong, and since we cannot usually afford manually to check every output they give, that generally means their use is discouraged, and reasonably so, as checking their output can be an unduly burdensome task for other editors. However in this case, that is not an issue, as the article is short enough to be easily checked and all the sources are freely available online. Nothing about the subject or article warrants deletion. – Ike Lek (talk) 02:40, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draft: I suppose, if this person is notable, but the LLM usage isn't helpful. We need to start from zero. Oaktree b (talk) 13:17, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Surjasikha Das

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Women, and India. Taabii (talk) 11:29, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify, new article which could be improved rather than deleted, as highlighted by Fade258 SDGB1217 (talk) 10:09, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~~Draftify~~. After conducting a thorough BEFORE search, I was able to find reliable, secondary and independent references to the subject which includes trivial information or routine coverage that doesn't meet the threshold criteria for general notability guidelines or demonstrate significant coverage. The article was created on 21st July 2025, which appears to be a fairly new. She has had some supporting roles in notable movie and TV shows i.e Maa (2025 film) and Bade Achhe Lagte Hain 3 respectively. So, as per alternatives to deletion draftify will be applied here for further improvement. Fade258 (talk) 14:04, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Assam-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:29, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 13:20, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

V. Senthil Kumar

(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. (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. (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]

@Thilsebatti: Comment – All of the URLs in the eight-row table appear to be either mistyped or unrelated to V. Senthil Kumar and were not cited in the article, so the reliability scoring is not verifiable:

Indian Express link (`…9162105`) URL returns 404.
TOI link (`…101615481`) URL returns 404.
Indiantelevision URL returns 404.
India Today URL returns 404.
Exchange4Media URL redirects to an unrelated Viacom18 media-rights article.
Behindwoods URL returns 404.
Business World URL redirects to home page with a page Invalid input pop-up.
YourStory is blacklist-tagged on en-wiki and was not cited in the article.

Per WP:V and WP:BURDEN, the onus is on the editor adding a source to provide an accurate, working citation. Until correct links are supplied, the table (and the conclusions drawn from it) should not be used to assess GNG/NBIO compliance. Madan80 (talk) 02:23, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — Meets both WP:GNG and WP:NBIO. Over 12 years (2013 – 2025) the subject receives sustained, in-depth coverage in reliable, independent sources about him personally, not just his company:
- ‘’D. Govardan, “They changed the way we watch movies”, The Times of India, 21 Nov 2022’’ – 1,800-word career profile from 1986 to Qube Wire (2018).
- ‘’Pranati A. S., “Accessibility is not a feature, it’s a social imperative”, Deccan Herald, 29 Nov 2024’’ – IFFI master-class piece on accessibility by Kumar. https://www.deccanherald.com/india/accessibility-is-not-a-feature-its-a-social-imperative-says-senthil-kumar-at-iffi-3297767)
- ‘’Shobha Warrier, “Indian entrepreneurs have 100 times more opportunities today”, Rediff, 25 Nov 2013’’ – retrospective interview following Real Image/Qube milestones.
- ’’N. Vinoth Kumar, “Oscars: How Senthil Kumar’s Qube Cinema changed the Indian film industry”, The Federal, 16 Jul 2020’’ – 2-page analysis tied to his AMPAS invite. (https://thefederal.com/the-eighth-column/oscars-how-senthil-kumars-qube-cinema-changed-the-indian-film-industry)
- ‘’M. Suganth, “Chennai-based movie-tech guru Senthil Kumar gets Academy invite”, TOI, 1 Jul 2020’’ – independent report, not press release.
- Selective honours that satisfy NBIO §8
  - ‘’Member-at-Large, Academy of Motion Picture Arts & Sciences (2020)’’ – one of only three Indians invited that year (TOI, 1 Jul 2020).
  - ‘’IMAX Big Cine Expo – Special Achievement Award (2018)’’ – covered by Medianews4u, 29 Aug 2018; official award video on YouTube (Network208 channel, 30 Aug 2018) includes testimonials from multiple notable persons including Rajkumar Hirani, Vidhu Vinod Chopra and Rakeysh Omprakash Mehra praising ‘Kumar’s’ personal contributions. (https://www.bigcineawards.com/awards18.php) (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fJ3_oH-XRNE)
  - ‘’Distinguished Alumni Award, NIT Tiruchirappalli (2023)’’ – reported in TOI city edition, 13 Dec 2023. (https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/trichy/nit-t-distinguished-alumni-awards-and-young-achiever-awards/articleshow/105948111.cms)
With multiple substantial features plus three nationally-reported, selective honours, Kumar clearly passes GNG and NBIO (§1, §3, §8). Any remaining COI polishing can be handled by normal editing; deletion is unwarranted. — Madan80 (talk) 03:05, 23 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!} 04:14, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Deanne Panday

AfDs for this article:

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]

DNA article: As I see it no truly independent article would include things like the last two paragraphs listing pricing information; the sole purpose of that is to promote business to here, and means the article is by definition not independent.

The Times of India article (in addition to general concerns about the reliability/independence of this source) manages to not actually be significant coverage because all it says about her (as opposed to the fitness industry as a whole) is that she posted some stuff on instagram.

The Business Standard article comes closest and may be acceptable.

I agree with Zuck28 (and have nothing more to say) for the remaining three sources here. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:01, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete:Agree with the nomination here. Notability is not established with significant professional sources. It is a gathering of mentions, routine coverage at best. Coldupnorth (talk) 18:04, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please clarify why you consider these sources to lack significant coverage or to be routine mentions? The articles I provided above including the one from The Economic Times are detailed, full-length features that focus specifically on Deanne Panday’s work as a fitness author. They include original quotes, biographical context, and discussion of her professional influence, which seems to go beyond routine coverage.

I've also found additional in-depth coverage such as:

Times of India: An editorial piece focused on her fitness career and early start as a wellness coach, not gossip or routine reporting.
India.com: Another article with biographical depth highlighting her career journey, wellness philosophy, and professional associations.
ABP Live: While partly visual, it still includes contextual details about her work as a fitness trainer and author.
News18 Hindi: Offers background information in the context of her family, but also presents her personal achievements and fitness career.
News24 Hindi: Mentions her appearance in a music video, but within a broader frame of her public presence.

These sources provide in-depth coverage of her career and public contributions and not just passing mentions or celebrity gossip. Several include original reporting, and contextual depth. There appears to be enough to merit a broader look through WP:BEFORE if needed. Thank you, GSS ^💬 05:09, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

India. Com article is primary source, written by the subject herself.

MSN article is a syndicated feed from a TOI interview, again a primary source.

News18: A photogallery with a tag of "agency", indicating a PR supply.

And News24Hindi article link is not working. Zuck28 (talk) 05:20, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure about that?

The India.com article was written by their journalist Kritika Vaid, not by the subject herself, so it's not a self-published or primary source.

The MSN article, I've already replaced it with the original from TOI. Also, it's not a direct interview it uses a few quotes, making it a secondary report rather than a primary one.

As for News18, the article was authored by journalist Versha, not labeled as PR. News18India is a legitimate media outlet under the News18 group, not a pr agency.

Lastly, here is the link to News24Hindi, edited by their journalist Nancy Tomar. You can't just simply dismiss every source just because you nominated the article for deletion. Each source should be evaluated on its own merits, not based on the outcome you’re hoping for. GSS ^💬 05:53, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Zuck28: There was a third AfD for this, under a different spelling, which is why it doesn't show up in the header. GSS closed it as Keep. This was promptly overturned at DRV as a WP:BADNAC and relisted, at which point GSS voted "Strong Keep". Owen× ☎ 13:23, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: to hear from other editors.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 15:57, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I've spent a while above responding to a gish gallop of sources, most of which don't meet the criteria for one reason or another. But that misses the fundamental issue; I frankly don't care if two (or three, or however many the community expects) sources are presented that I can't immediately refute. That still won't change the fundamentally deeply suspicious situation behind this article (and this AfD, since I suspect GSS's comments above were made backwards; they started with the premise that this article should be kept, and tried to find sources to prove that premise), which combined with the known phenomenon of Paid news in India, makes it impossible to definitely establish that any source presented is truly independent of the subject. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:01, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, I am drawing these conclusions entirely from on-wiki behavior in this and the previous AfDs. I'm not aware of any off-wiki evidence, and I'll admit I kind of started with the premise that the article should be deleted because of that, but nothing seen above has convinced me otherwise. And the term "backwards" above is an analogy to Wikipedia:Writing Wikipedia articles backward * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:05, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also note [21]. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:07, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Another note: I will not respond to any counterargument GSS may make to this comment. No comment they make could possibly convince me to change my opinion. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:10, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your taking the time to engage with the sources and offer a detailed rationale. However, I must respectfully disagree with your conclusion and would like to clarify a few points.

First, the notability should be assessed per WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV, not based on speculation around possible motivations or generalized suspicion about the Indian media landscape. While it's valid to be cautious about paid news (a real concern), dismissing all coverage from reputable Indian publications on the mere possibility of promotional intent doesn't align with how Wikipedia evaluates notability.

You mention that you "frankly don't care" if there are two or more acceptable sources. But WP:N does care if multiple reliable, independent, and non-trivial sources exist that provide significant coverage of the subject, then notability is presumed. The burden is not on editors to prove absolute independence beyond all doubt, especially not when dealing with professionally edited media like The Economic Times, Business Standard, India Today, Hindustan Times, etc. These outlets are routinely accepted as reliable across thousands of articles on Wikipedia.

Moreover, some of the sources you've dismissed (such as the Business Standard piece) were incorrectly characterized earlier as lacking bylines or being promotional, when in fact they are properly attributed, independently written, and provide contextual analysis of the subject's work. The DNA India article is over 300 words and directly discusses subject's career trajectory and impact on the fitness industry. Even if it includes service details (as lifestyle pieces often do), this doesn't make it inherently promotional and certainly doesn't disqualify it per WP:RS.

The core of your argument seems to rest not just on source analysis but on distrust of the editing behavior involved ("backwards reasoning", "deeply suspicious situation"). But behavioral concerns should be dealt with via WP:SPI, WP:COI, or WP:UPE investigations, not by invalidating reliable sources or shifting the burden of proof.

Finally, I'd still welcome an explanation of how specific sources I provided above fail WP:SIGCOV. Simply labeling every article as "routine" or "PR" without a closer look at their content and context doesn't fairly reflect what GNG actually requires. Let's please keep the focus on content and sources. Wikipedia notability is policy-based, not suspicion-based. GSS ^💬 05:19, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of Bulgarian film directors

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Otr500 (talk) 07:00, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Lists of people, and Bulgaria. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:32, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Allows a good and dynamic overview of a notable topic (with dates, which the category does not allow). WP:NLIST allows lists that have an informational/navigational purpose, but, regardless, the topic was also covered as a set in various books including Cinemas in transition in Central and Eastern Europe after 1989 (passim) or, to a lesser extent, The most important art : Soviet and Eastern European film after 1945,for example. Can be improved.It could also be merged into Cinema of Bulgaria but as the navbox shows this is a pretty standard list and deletion does not seem necessary.- Eva Ux 23:17, 20 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) 07:54, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per Eva UX. Hyperbolick (talk) 07:24, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

David Dillehunt

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, United States of America, and Virginia. 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. ResonantDis_tortion 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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: We need some more arguments focused on sources and outcomes.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:19, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The subject of this article meets notability criteria as outlined in WP:BIO and WP:NDIRECTOR and the article has been revised to include proper citation formatting and reliable sources, including WP:SECONDARY coverage. There is no COI and all citations have been validated. I suggest keeping the article and closing this AfD discussion. Dndlive (talk) 15:31, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Shanaya Kapoor

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, and Maharashtra. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:53, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Even if she fails WP:NACTOR, from the look of the references sections she meets WP:GNG. – Ike Lek (talk) 11:49, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Easy keep per Ike Lek. Plenty of SIGCOV given the number of sources with her name right there in the title. Cremastra (talk) 16:43, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The subject fails WP:NACTOR. My presumption is that this is simply a case of WP:TOOSOON. I have to respectfully disagree with the subject meeting WP:GNG. The quality of the citations on her early and personal life are less than stellar (one is just an archived photo that does not even show up on the Wayback Machine). There are also problems with potential pay-for-coverage situations in the various Indian news sources. I will also note that notability is not inherited from her family and that an article about you or someone you like is not necessarily a good thing. --Mpen320 (talk) 16:47, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I do want to clarify that I had never heard of her before. I've just become addicted to participating in AfDs. I disagree with your assessment, but it is a respectable one. Ike Lek (talk) 20:09, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I did not mean to imply that you made your choice on WP:IDONTLIKEIT grounds. I just include that because there is a contingent in the world that seems to think that a Wikipedia article is a badge of honor. --Mpen320 (talk) 23:34, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Yes, but the citations can be easily changed to find more reliable ones. Although I may not like Kapoor personally, she has been a "notable" figure even before her debut. And if that is the case this renders the articles of Suhana Khan, Khushi Kapoor, Ibrahim Ali Khan and Agastya Nanda eligible for deletion. 19Arham (talk) 12:29, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I guess she just has one release but has enough citations to be on the page. Also one of her other film will release this year too. The page is on the same line as Suhana Khan, Agastya Nanda and Ibrahim Ali Khan. They all have one release and other upcoming. If those pages can be notable, this can be too. That's all I have to say, rest upto the editors.

Kyra(UJ) (talk)

Delete - Entirely fails WP:NACTOR. I would also like to see sources that establish GNG without breaching WP:NEWSORGINDIA. Shankargb (talk) 15:26, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — she is notable actress, she meets WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR also. Behappyyar (talk) 19:46, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Deceptively claiming that the subject meets GNG and NACTOR will never work. Captain AmericanBurger1775 (talk) 02:46, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not a single source has been provided to verify the false claims of the subject being notable. Captain AmericanBurger1775 (talk) 02:46, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Do you really thinks so that not a single reference claims the notability of subject? Behappyyar (talk) 13:06, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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	⚠️

Comment. This table conflicts with the perennial source list particularly the Reliable Secondary Source? column as it ignores the section section on Indian news organizations and adds organizations that do not appear on the list or in WP:RS archived conversations. There seems to be a strand of "it is so because I said it is so," in this AfD. --Mpen320 (talk) 17:27, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also a bit suspicious of the formatting of the source titles and corresponding URLs: looks like Markdown to me, which smacks of LLM generation. I would take it with a great pinch of salt! Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 17:32, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reply. Given that the Indulge Express is a sub-publication of the The New Indian Express and this includes both as separate sources, I would say yes it was LLM.--Mpen320 (talk) 20:25, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would encourage you to make your own table (even copy this one and tweak it) if you contest this one. Ike Lek (talk) 18:48, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The idea that the users who want to retain the article get to spaghetti the wall with poorly made tables and misstating policy and force those who disagree to play cleanup is absurd. If someone uses a clearly bad LLM model that does not even hyperlink (though it seems to have been fixed by someone since I made my point earlier) to the pages of the sources in the article. It is not my job as a volunteer to provide a counter-table that redundantly lists off opinions I've already stated. I am confident the closer in this AfD will weigh my arguments without my engaging in my own table.--Mpen320 (talk) 20:24, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not trying to put undue burden on to you. My comment wasn't about addressing the closer, but facilitating a discussion. It would be helpful to know which specific parts of the table you disagree with when considering my own stance. Ike Lek (talk) 22:10, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I know you are acting in good faith. I mean, I disagree with all of it, but I already make that argument elsewhere. I just did not want my not making a table to be seen as some sort of concession.--Mpen320 (talk) 20:34, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:NACTOR. None of the sources establish notability since they all belong to WP:NEWSORGINDIA, and have issues listed there, such as having promotional tone while not having bylines and being undisclosed paid articles in general. Ratnahastin (talk) 16:31, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 20:31, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — she is notable actress, she meets criteria of WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR also. BerryPulpy (talk) 12:41, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

But how? Describe. Lorstaking (talk) 07:17, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Nobody who supported keeping the article has addressed any issues with the sources as well as the failure of WP:NACTOR so far. Lorstaking (talk) 07:17, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I believe I was the first person to comment on this AfD, and the first thing I said was addressing WP:NACTOR. I don't know what your problem with the sources are. They don't all need to be reliable to meet WP:GNG. If even a third of them are, then there's still WP:SIGCOV. Ike Lek (talk) 07:26, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I know notability depends on sources and i belive she is notable. Over 97,000 views (here) in the past 30 days suggest significant public interest, this level of traffic supports keeping and improving the article. Behappyyar (talk) 09:09, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Anushka Kaushik

AfDs for this article:

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Women, Delhi, Maharashtra, and Uttar Pradesh. Zuck28 (talk) 12:11, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not enough articles for notability. 🄻 🄰 14:30, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She played lead roles in several web series such as Ghar Waapsi (for which she was nominated for award as best female actor), Crash Course (TV series), Namacool, Who's Your Daddy? (2020 TV series). Behappyyar (talk) 02:16, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete her lead roles are not actually main roles. She fails NACTOR. Old-AgedKid (talk) 14:21, 21 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]

Keep: although the article needs some serious trimming, she had various roles in notable productions and although some are not lead, they are clearly significant and are mentioned/assessed in the reviews of the said productions. She therefore meets WP:NACTRESS imv and the article could be improved with sources such as https://www.lutopiamagazine.com/cover-stories/inner-joy-trails-my-inspiration-:-a-candid-conversation-with-the-creative-anushka-kaushik?srsltid=AfmBOorwI2XvwVCDh-krmdK3n5_xJRw1h4RC88Pq6lveFED5GjbcSkoh (based on an interview but containing a bylined comment) or https://www.hindustantimes.com/entertainment/web-series/when-anushka-kaushik-s-mother-was-left-embarrassed-hearing-about-casting-couch-101663248293134.html (same comment), for example (please note that I am not arguing that these are the main sources for her notability). - Eva Ux 10:04, 25 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!} 19:14, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, on the basis she meets the general notability criteria purely on the number of news articles that exist about her (many of which are cited in the Wikipedia article). True, they are not all of the highest quality and sometimes consist largely of interviews and quotes, but there does seem to be a LOT of media interest in her. Sionk (talk) 22:42, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the sources show that she meets GNG even if she does not meet NACTOR - she is clearly notable. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 22:55, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bunty Singh

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Artists, Dance, India, Bihar, Jharkhand, and West Bengal. Zuck28 (talk) 16:47, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the coverage appears to be occasioned by his death, assessing the career of someone prominent who has died, not about his death, as would be the case if someone was murdered or died in an unusual way. This kind of editorial obituary coverage actually establishes notability under GNG. Jahaza (talk) 18:50, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Career includes non-notable projects, that too without proper citations. Fails Wp:NACTOR. Zuck28 (talk) 18:57, 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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 19:13, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - tragic, but his supposed great contributions to a niche cinema have no articles and no citations. Bearian (talk) 23:25, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Maksud Hossain

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Bangladesh. Shellwood (talk) 20:06, 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]

Weak keep – The page is sloppy, but the Variety and Dhaka Tribune sources look promising. Additionally, this contains some coverage preceding the interview [22]. This is also some coverage [23]. Same with this [24]. I'm curious if he could also meet WP:DIRECTOR, as his film Saba earned some prominent recognition and has a lot of independent reviews. – Ike Lek (talk) 05:33, 23 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) 20:34, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: per his making Saba film which officially selected for many international film festivals and he won a notable award for making a short film. – Aqsis Bey (talk) 14:33, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Marudhu Pandiyan

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Entertainment, India, and Tamil Nadu. LKBT (talk) 12:34, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – The subject appears to meet notability guidelines for film directors. Reliable sources from The Hindu, Film Companion, and others exist and have been added. Will continue to improve article with inline citations. Surendrankaliyaperumal (talk) 19:06, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Moved !vote from Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Marudhu Pandiyan. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 19:58, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:NFILMMAKER even WP:GNG, it seems like the titles of the references have been altered to mislead other editors. Baqi:) (talk) 13:27, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This AfD will hinge on this sentence from NFILMMAKER 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. (emphasis added). It is certain that he directed 2 movies (Chennai Ungalai Anbudan Varaverkirathu and Asuravadham) which is playing a major role in creating them, but are they significant or well-known works. I am leaning towards no and thus delete but I think this is what the focus of the discussion should be. Moritoriko (talk) 07:11, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ – * ~~Keep~~ Comment– Marudhu Pandiyan directed multiple films that have received independent coverage in national publications including *The Hindu*, *Film Companion*, *News18 Tamil*, and *BBC Tamil*. His film *Asuravadham* was discussed extensively in critical circles and review columns. This coverage satisfies WP:GNG, and directing more than one theatrically released feature supports WP:NFILMMAKER. The article has since been improved with inline citations to reflect these sources. User:Surendrankaliyaperumal (talk) 18:42, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You cannot cast a keep vote twice Chanel Dsouza (talk) 10:53, 28 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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:58, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Usually this would have been an easy keep, as the filmmaker has two movies, but there is no coverage about the subject. I don't see any announcements of his upcoming movies either, so we have nothing to write about here. Fails SIGCOV Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 07:25, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Clancy O'Connor

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Television, Kansas, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:50, 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]

Keep notable actor has participated in several television series 200.46.55.180 (talk) 00:28, 25 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) 02:49, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rebuttal. Appearing in single episodes (two in one series) does not make him notable. He would need to play at least a recurring character for that. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:48, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Akshay Bardapurkar

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, and India. Thilsebatti (talk) 07:50, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Maharashtra. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:49, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the Forbes India listing is a made up in one day award for an up and coming but run of the mill business person, producers and managers being especially ordinary. See also WP:NOTFB. The remaining sources are also unreliable or not independent. Bearian (talk) 15:26, 11 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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:07, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: PR fluff [25] and later legal troubles [26] are about what I find. Beyond the fluffy articles and until the lawsuit, there isn't much coverage to be found. I don't think the legal issues help notability. Oaktree b (talk) 20:10, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Coverage is limited to routine announcements and promotional interviews, with no sustained, independent, reliable sources demonstrating notability; the subject therefore fails both WP:GNG and WP:NPRODUCER. Aeon Sentinel (talk) 23:03, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mohit Marwah

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Businesspeople, Fashion, India, Delhi, Maharashtra, Uttar Pradesh, and New York. Zuck28 (talk) 12:12, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:NACTOR even WP:NBASIC, also wikipedia is not WP:INHERITED. Baqi:) (talk) 08:57, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep He had lead roles in two notable (if average) films, so just meets WP:NACTOR. See WP:ICTFSOURCES for reliable sources for Indian films - there are additional, reliable sources in the articles about the films which could be added here. It appears that he is now a managing director at a university - this [27] is not a reliable source (being sponsored content and full of peacockery), but if a reliable source could be found, that info could be added to the article to bring it up to date. RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:05, 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) 05:50, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The subject meets WP:NACTOR with lead roles in two feature films. I can find references which are enough to support the case. Sooterout (talk) 17:44, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Which of the sources, demonstrates that these two roles are lead roles? Zuck28 (talk) 19:02, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The actor did have significant roles in Fugly and Raag Desh. In fact, in the latter, the subject was featured on the theatrical poster, which strongly suggests that he was one of the central characters. In Fugly as well, the actor played a major role that received attention and analysis in reviews by film critics.Chanel Dsouza (talk) 12:06, 11 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]
Delete – Per RangersRus source analysis. Clearly lacks in-depth coverage. Svartner (talk) 21:54, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cyrobyte (talk) 04:10, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: weakly pass wp:NACTOR 👑 KingBegger · 💬 · ⚔️ 10:08, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
delete the actor has only two films, and there are no reliable sources to affirm that he has lead roles in them. also, we have to be aware of WP:NEWSORGINDIA. Almost all the sources about the subject look like puff pieces. Other sources are not about him (they seem promotional/PR as well), they are about the films, and general gossip sites/tabloid-like coverage. In essence, actor fails WP:NACTOR (only two films, we cant be sure about lead roles), and there is not significant coverage in reliable sources, failing general notability guidelines as well. In case the actor becomes notable in the future, the article can be created again. —usernamekiran (talk) 14:09, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin McGarry (actor)

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Canada. Bearcat (talk) 14:27, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep: Probably have enough for a basic article. He seems to be in a few popular tv shows. [28], [29], [30]. Enough for at least a basic article. Oaktree b (talk) 19:04, 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:

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.
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.
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.
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]

Comment: Further coverage in Good Housekeeping and Women's World [31] and [32]. We have enough to show ACTOR being met, the actor seems well-known among the Hallmark Channel fandom. Oaktree b (talk) 17:34, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: this is a prominent tv actor - the Good Housekeeping and Us Weekly coverage is legit RS. Llajwa (talk) 18:51, 11 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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist; would be nice to get some fresh outside input from folks who haven't yet participated in this discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 06:52, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep the People and Kincardine Independent articles are probably just barely enough to clear WP:GNG, though better sources would be nice. Most others are about his shows, not him. Also the article has a lot of fluff that can be trimmed, but that's an editing issue. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 11:06, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as discussed before, there are at least a couple of decent references. The deletion proposal basically says that the article is very bad - which is not a deletion reason as it can be improved per WP:ATD-E. And that it is primarily not GNG references. But as at least a couple meet WP:N, then it's irrelevant. I don't know why a clear fail of valid deletion reasons needs three relists, when all this was very clear after the first relist (which itself was reasonable). Nfitz (talk) 15:55, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

GNG requires numerous hits of RS coverage, not just "a couple" — and the rule is not "as long as a couple of references are decent the article can otherwise be referenced mainly to unreliable junk", it's that the referencing has to be all GNG-worthy reliable sourcing with zero junk. Bearcat (talk) 20:20, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You've been here long enough to know that two good references is the test used at AFD for an actor. Stop. Nfitz (talk) 21:59, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Two references is enough to get an actor over GNG only if one or both of them are verifying something that would constitute an inherent notability hook, like winning an Oscar or an Emmy. If an actor doesn't pass a hard notability criterion like that, and instead you're going strictly for the soft criterion of "notable because media coverage of him exists", then passing GNG requires more than just two references.
It's similar to politicians: two references is enough to start the article about a politician who's been elected to an office that would pass NPOL #1, while two references is not enough to claim that an unelected candidate, or a local officeholder who would have to satisfy NPOL #2, had passed GNG and was therefore exempted from NPOL.
Even in AFD discussions, the baseline number that gets thrown around is WP:THREE, not "WP:TWO" (which does exist as a shortcut redirect, but refers to something different), and even three sources still doesn't necessarily lock down inclusion in Wikipedia — those three sources still get tested for their quality, depth, geographic range and the context of what they're covering the person for, and GNG is not just "automatically keep any topic that has three footnotes in it". Bearcat (talk) 13:45, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I completely disagree. Also WP:THREE is merely an essay. AND it literally says "two or three". You are far better than this - gaslighting is unacceptable (or perhaps you didn't read what you were quoting). Nfitz (talk) 02:47, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:NACTOR as a main-cast actor in two long-running, internationally broadcast series (Heartland and When Calls the Heart) plus lead roles in multiple Hallmark originals, and is the subject of independent coverage in People, Good Housekeeping and regional press—sourcing clean-up is easy editorial work, not a reason for deletion. Aeon Sentinel (talk) 01:23, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP per Aeon Sentinel above. Obvious pass for WP:NACTOR. Surprised this was nominated, although article needs some work. Regards, GenQuest ^"scribble" 02:01, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletions

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

Elizabeth Dulau (via WP:PROD on 18 May 2025)