Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/Today

Purge
Shortcut WP:AFD/T

19 April 2025

Read how to nominate an article for deletion.

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

Media Organisations Biography Society Web Games Science Arts Places Indiscern. Not-Sorted

< April 18	April 20 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

Luminosity Entertainment (American film company)

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

Non-notable film company. Sources provided only mention the subject in passing. Fails WP:NCOMPANY. Author appears to have a COI, since they also created Luminosity Entertainment (American film studio), which was an exact duplicate of this article. Possible PE as well. CycloneYoris ^talk! 06:03, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Companies, and United States of America. CycloneYoris ^talk! 06:03, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Radio in the Flemish Community

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

The subject of this article fails WP:GNG. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 09:32, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio and Netherlands. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 09:32, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This type of article is very common. To link a few: Radio in France, Radio in Germany, Radio in Austria and Radio in the Republic of Ireland. Concerning the notability of the Flemish Community: since Belgium is roughly split into two language regions, each region has its own set of radio stations. AllOriginalBubs (talk) 15:59, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

AllOriginalBubs, the examples are from primary level national units. Do you claim that this level should be skipped in Belgium? gidonb (talk) 03:18, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:50, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Mass media in Belgium#Radio as an ATD for an unjustified spinoff. Not sure that any of the information is missing there yet access and history would be preserved. gidonb (talk) 09:47, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A quick search of Google Books shows the following English-language sources: Who Owns the World's Media? Media Concentration and Ownership Around the World (Oxford University Press) [1], pages 42-43; Media Compass: A Companion to International Media Landscapes (Wiley) [2], pages 22-23; The Media in Europe: The Euromedia Handbook (SAGE Publications) [3], pages 21-23. I'm sure there's more, in English and in other languages. If there were an article on Radio in Belgium, equivalent to Television in Belgium, it might be appropriate to merge this article there - but I don't think that merging or redirecting to Mass media in Belgium, which covers radio, tv, press, would be appropriate. RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:33, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:12, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I found some sources. General history: Publieke televisie in Vlaanderen p23-26 are only about the radio. Non public local radio: Regionale media in Vlaanderen: een doorlichting p.137-165; influence of the radio on dialect: Dialectverlies of dialectrevival?: actueel taalgedrag in Vlaanderen p.116; Radioplays: Translation and the Transnational Dynamics of the Radio Play in the Low Countries; I will place these and other sources on the talk page.

The books mostly cover radio together with television (because in the past the broadcasters were the same) so a merge of radio and television could be possible. The journal articles do seem to cover them separately. I advocate for keeping them separate because the commercial radio stations aren't involved in television in most cases, a book has more place to cover things than a wikipage and because it is a different medium. Merging to a radio in Belgium article is also possible, but the sources do focus more on Flanders separately.Rolluik (talk) 16:44, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 06:03, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Donald Pelmear

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

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

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

His role in The Time Warrior is significant, not minor. ~~Merge~~ into a not-yet existing cast section of that serial. Thanks. (https://www.radiotimes.com/tv/sci-fi/doctor-who-guide/the-time-warrior/) -Mushy Yank. 19:06, 4 April 2025 (UTC)-->changed to Keep per Wp:Hey. Thanks, RebeccaGreen, for your impressive work.-Mushy Yank. 20:18, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

Delete I'm finding nothing but his name in cast listings. The obit is a single sentence. I hoped to find biographical articles related to his 100-year birthday, but didn't. When you search on his name in WP articles he is name-checked under "and others" or "guest appearance". None of this supports notability. Lamona (talk) 03:19, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have added a table of stage performances (which I will continue adding to - there's currently a 20 year gap), with quotes in the sources about his performances. I have also started editing the text of the article. He certainly played leading roles in repertory in many cities around England, and received very positive reviews. I have called out some notable performances in which he had leading roles in the article. I'll keep working on it. I believe that he does meet WP:NACTOR. RebeccaGreen (talk) 11:55, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note that he also must meet WP:BASIC, which means "significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources..." Unfortunately, most of the sources that have been added are trivial mentions, such as ...while Darryl Kavann and Donald Pelmear characterized their roles well. Or Beryl Hardy and Donald Pelmear are also good, as mother and son hotel-keepers. As WP:BASIC says: "trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability." It doesn't help us decide notability with this WP:REFBOMBing going on (now over 50 and counting). I know you are trying to be helpful, but what would be helpful would be to make the difficult decision of which roles and which sources actually support notability, and making the article about those. Listing every mention of his name, especially one-line mentions, puts undue burden on those of us trying to determine if this article should stay. What you have here so far, if I am reading this right, are two sources that have a single paragraph each; the rest are quite short. I would like to know if you can point to 2-3 "significant published secondary sources". Lamona (talk) 00:24, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As I have stated, this article is under construction. Yes, it may be possible to delete some roles and sources, but I cannot assess which would be best to delete until I have an overall picture of his 60 year career. No, I have not by any means included every mention of his name, nor every role that he played - there are many more. What you have quoted as WP:NBASIC is actually WP:GNG. WP:NBASIC states that "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability." He does meet WP:NBASIC as well as WP:NACTOR, as multiple independent sources do combine to demonstrate notability. The reviews of his performances are not trivial. If all the sources were of the quality of the two you have called out, the caveat that "trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability" might apply - but they are not. There is no requirement in WP policy to point to 2-3 "significant published secondary sources". WP:OVERCITE is an essay, not a policy or guideline. Also, WP:OVERCITE does not apply, as each performance has only 1 or 2 references. It may look excessive because I have included quotes from the sources that are paywalled on the British Newspaper Archive, so that they are accessible to other editors who do not have a subscription. No doubt if I added performances without references, someone would add "Citation needed" tags, or if I did not include quotes, someone would say "we don't know if it's just a cast list". If you find it hard to assess notability while the article is still under construction, please wait. Other editors appear not to have found it difficult. RebeccaGreen (talk) 11:07, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected. That's the 4th bullet point of WP:GNG. "Multiple" means at least more than one. Here in AfD we often ask for 2-3 as a shorthand for talking about a small "multiple." You needn't try to wiki-lawyer your way out of a very simple, basic request that could help us assess this article. What we should be discussing is the content of this article, and I still want to know what exists, even if not yet added to the article, that supports notability. You say: "He does meet WP:NBASIC as well as WP:NACTOR, as multiple independent sources do combine to demonstrate notability." Could you please link or reference those sources here as they are vital to this decision. Lamona (talk) 17:39, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This article is currently under construction. Passes WP:NACTOR. Moondragon21 (talk) 19:10, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This article has significantly changed since its AfD nomination. -Mushy Yank. 10:09, 18 April 2025 (UTC)(Again, sources added by RebeccaGreen are on the page, some including quotes, and asking to have a link on this page is totally unnecessary. Users who wish to read them, should read the page and the accusation of "Wikilawyering" is at best absurd.).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 06:02, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Two Autumns in Paris

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

Promo for non notable film. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. No sign of any reviews. Being screened at minor festivals and winning minor awards does not satisfy NFILM. One of multiple promo pieces for Francisco Villarroel and his creations made by the same spammer. duffbeerforme (talk) 03:38, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per the reasons you have just said. An editor from Mars (talk) 04:27, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Canada, and Venezuela. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:05, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Production and screenings received a lot of coverage in Spanish...@Kingsif:, if you have time, could you have a look at this and, maybe, if it's not asking too much, the associated pages (another film, a festival and the actor mentioned above)? Thanks a lot!-Mushy Yank. 07:29, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Given the coverage and awards/nominations, a redirect to List of Venezuelan films (listed there in 2020) would seem appropriate, at least. -Mushy Yank. 07:34, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There's a decent chance that at least this film is suitable for an article, based on a very quick search, but then looking at the articles all made by quite an obvious COI user, we may be in WP:TNT territory in terms of what content is/should be usable. I can have a better look later but am kinda swamped for a few days. Kingsif (talk) 02:14, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:21, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Having looked in Spanish, most sources are Venezuelan film organisations (Gran Cine, Trasnocho Cultural, government) that kinda just mention its existence. However, there's a few international sources about screenings and festivals, and the cast (Cervantes Institute, La Vanguardia). Small coverage, but RS and more than 'look we made this'. The film also got a wide cinema release in Venezuela - which would be no small feat any time after 2014, but is frankly outstanding that it happened in 2020. (El Estímulo, El Universal). Possibly the best source to start the article afresh with might be this Unión Radio piece (and interview?) about it. I don't think El Carabobeño is generally accepted as RS, but it has an article about the film being adapted from Villarroel's book, itself based on a true story, that could be useful if acceptable. Also to note, most of the awards listed on its IMDb are absolute duds, and as such the (probably quite evident anyway) Venezuelan government propaganda media, just listing off how many global awards this thing got, should be avoided. Kingsif (talk) 22:04, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with the sources added to the article. Nfitz (talk) 21:58, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 05:58, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

UCPH Department of Chemistry

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

Fails WP:GNG. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 19:49, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science and Denmark. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 19:49, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:58, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm leaning towards keep just because this is such an old department and has the start of what looks to be a verifiable history - I just can't find it because I don't know any Danish and have to rely on Google Translate to find anything useful. If no one else can find information about it (the other departments also pretty heavily rely on primary sources, though they are in general better sourced) then it would probably be best to merge to University of Copenhagen Faculty of Science. Recon rabbit 15:01, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:41, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's tricky, but there are indications that there's enough in histories of Hans Christian Ørsted and in the quincentennial history of the University published in 1978 (and apparently held in the Rigsarkivet) to cover the history of the Chemistry institute specifically. It will need to be carefully teased apart from the history of chemistry at the Technical University of Denmark, which also involved Ørsted and some of which is apparently shared. Uncle G (talk) 00:44, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 05:34, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Straive

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

Not very notable company and only known due to acquisition news Nintendoswitchfan (talk) 05:07, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Vincenzo Soprano

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

Nomination: Notability. Nothing links here. There is no Italian page. He's not even mentioned on the page for Trenitalia. It also doesn't appear that he's still the CEO. It's not clear that this subject warrants an English Wikipedia page. Suggest a Wikidata page should be sufficient for the material currently on the page. ash (talk) 04:44, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Stage School Australia

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

The vast majority in unsourced or primary sourced, so I intended to improve the article but very much struggled to find good secondary sources. The school does not seem to fit notability guidelines. -- NotCharizard ^🗨 02:59, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Theatre, Companies, Schools, and Australia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:29, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – The article lacks strong independent sources and relies mostly on primary or promotional content. Doesn’t meet WP:GNG or WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. Without significant secondary coverage, notability isn’t established. Pridemanty (talk) 06:32, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is not a single independent source cited in the article, which appears to be entirely promotional. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:47, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am not finding much through online searches. Interestingly, there was an Australian Youth Theatre in the 1940s in Sydney. I think it may be necessary to look in books and journals that aren't online for more info on the various branches and names of this organisation. RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:33, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, I closed this as a Delete but a trusted editor requested that I relist so I'm accommodating that request. Please consider their additions.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:56, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:GNG and WP:ORG. I'm still in the middle of expanding and editing the article and will return to this discussion. Cielquiparle (talk) 03:57, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Coleman (soccer)

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

Coleman played three games of professional soccer for a team in the second tier of the American soccer pyramid, does not appeared to have played professionally after that point. Appears to fail WP:NSPORT and WP:SIGCOV. Raskuly (talk) 03:16, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Oklahoma. Raskuly (talk) 03:16, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:02, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Preetha Ram

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

No independent, secondary sources found about the subject. The article was previously PROD'd and contested back in 2009, so it seems that an AfD is the only course of action available here. WormEater13 (talk • contribs) 02:10, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, Businesspeople, and Women. WormEater13 (talk • contribs) 02:10, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Susan (drag queen)

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

Does not meet notability criteria. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 00:00, 5 April 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 April 5. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:19, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Belgium. Shellwood (talk) 00:31, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:36, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per nom. No notability demonstrated in the present sources. Svartner (talk) 08:59, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Arguably passes WP:CREATIVE because of an international tour. Bearian (talk) 14:52, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Which part of WP:CREATIVE? ꧁Zanahary꧂ 16:15, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:12, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, it should be WP:SINGER, criteria 4. Bearian (talk) 04:09, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe this person is a musician, which is the category that that SNG pertains to. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 04:23, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per ENTERTAINER. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:25, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I don’t believe this person meets ENT, because the two credits they have are to a franchise of RuPaul’s Drag Race and a reunion for that season. The season reunion was just produced and streamed under the name “Bring Back My Girls”, which is an online-only collection of reunions for Drag Race franchises. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 15:01, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. User:Bearian are you arguing for a Keep here? It would be helpful to get a source analysis.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:55, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if PinkNews is a reliable source, and it's the only source for evidence of a "world tour". That's why I'm hesitant about keeping this. Bearian (talk) 01:37, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That’s not a world tour for Susan—it’s a tour entitled “Werq the World”, which books many drag queens, and per PinkNews Susan was booked for only two dates, in Antwerp and Stockholm. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 05:47, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Smruthi K

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

Fails Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria:

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

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

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

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:53, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. The subject of this article is not notable, so it doesn't seem like this article can be improved in any way.

WormEater13 (talk • contribs) 02:14, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sahar Hashmi

AfDs for this article:

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

Back at AfD after the first resulted in speedy deletion. Back in the mainspace and while I attempted to clean up (even moved to draft to allow for cleanup but that was objected to) but there is nothing useful to create the page. For NACTOR, a person is not inherently notable for two lead roles - they still need the significant coverage showing such. Here, the references are unreliable, some based on the publication and the rest based on being non-bylined churnalism. CNMall41 (talk) 00:41, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Pakistan. CNMall41 (talk) 00:43, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: 2 lead (ergo significant) roles in notable series, Zulm and Mann Mast Malang, thus meeting WP:NACTOR that states that actors "may be considered notable if" they had significant roles in notable productions. To pass WP:NACTOR, coverage is only needed to verify the importance of the roles in the notable productions. No notability guideline warrants "inherent notability" on WP: all of them, including WP:GNG mention a "presumption" of notability of some sort (presumed/may/likely, etc). See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ali Raza (actor), an AfD that I link here not for its outcome nor potential disagreements between given users but because it contains an extensive discussion about WP:NACTOR and WP:SNGs in general. In a nutshell: stating that subjects meeting any of the specific notability guidelines about notability "must first" (or "should also") meet GNG is an erroneous (albeit common) interpretation of what the guideline says. Meeting given specific requirements for notability can be considered sufficient, per consensus; that is why such guidelines exist; when the requirements of the applicable guideline are met, it can be agreed upon that the article may be retained. By the same token, those who don’t agree are obviously free to express their views but meeting specific requirements can be considered a good and sufficient reason to retain any page; in other words, in such cases, subjects don't need to also meet the general requirements. Even meeting them does not guarantee "inherently" an article, anyway.-Mushy Yank. 01:18, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Few things. The first is that although the AfD you linked here shows your contention that NACTOR is met with two main/lead roles, it also shows a divide amongst editors on how to interpret that. Note it closed as No Consensus with the closing admin noting that editors were divided in the assessment of NACTOR. However, the AfDs here and here where you asserted the same resulted in delete. While this does not establish consensus, it does show that editors do not share the same assessment. Note, I am not saying she must meet WP:GNG. I am saying she meets neither. Second, NACTOR is not met with two roles with "coverage is only needed to verify the importance of the roles in the notable productions." In fact, it says "meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included." Here, the sources are junk. They are non-bylined coverage similar to WP:NEWSORGINDIA, churnalism, websites like Celebrity Networth, or are otherwise unreliable. If someone is worthy of notice, you would think they would have more than this type of simple coverage. It would be more significant where they would meet WP:NBASIC. Finally, one of the shows you claim is a notable series, you actually redirected based on notability. You only reverted in March of 2025 to help support your contention in the first AfD. Both shows I think are marginally notable at best as they also contain the same type of unreliable sourcing, although I will not nominate either during this AfD so as not to give the appearance of WP:DISRUPTIVE. --CNMall41 (talk) 05:37, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Dance, and Television. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:03, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]