Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Actors and filmmakers

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

Deletion Sorting Project
(talk) Project page Lists (by ABC) Lists (by topic) Lists (computer-readable) AfD: Today, Yesterday Delsort scripts
v t e

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

Adding a new AfD discussion

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

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

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

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

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

Further information

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

Purge page cache

watch

Scan for actor AfDs

Scan for filmmaker AfDs

Khais Millen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Immediately refunded after soft deletion in 2023 but no change to address concerns in first AfD. Film writer/director who does not pass WP:GNG, WP:NCREATIVE, WP:NBIO. Most sources are [WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS]] if they mention him at all; there's an interview that's a WP:PRIMARYSOURCE and a single example of WP:SIGCOV that exhibits all the hallmarks of unreliable content of WP:NEWSORGINDIA. Not enough to pass. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:44, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: fairly meets WP:DIRECTOR AND WP:CREATIVE with at least 3 2 notable films directed and 3 2 written (not mentioning the fact he produced. 2); the said films are notable creations that received independent and in-depth coverage mentioning him. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 16:18, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  What part of WP:DIRECTOR are you referring to with "three notable films"? (Only two films he has been involved in even have en-wiki pages and only one of those he directed.) The only criterion I could plausibly see cited is "The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work," but there's no evidence that any of his works are "significant or well-known." Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:23, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I consider his debut film as director notable enough. See coverage about it online. It has no page yet on WP, true. Added 2 links to the article. Writer: my bad, I had counted Lipstick, which is a short. Even if it's only two or even if it it was only one, he would pass both SNGs because these works can be considered significant, as coverage shows. I'll leave it at that as he is a really clear pass imv.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 16:38, 16 July 2024 (UTC) (number of significant films; clarification: 3 or 4 films including 2 directed (Thala; and I count Aakashvani), 2 written (Adithattu and Thala, to which one can add again Aakashvani)); the 1st has received a significant award and is clearly significant imv).-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 16:51, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, India, and Kerala. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 16:19, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment on the opening assertion in the nomination: sorry but no change to address concerns in first AfD is an inaccurate statement.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 16:38, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Fine, no substantive change. The addition of WP:TRIVIALMENTION citations does not address the concerns in the AfD. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:57, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I beg to differ. If those mentions (trivial or not) allow to verify he had an essential role in notable productions they do address the concerns, especially as one mentioned the award for Best Second film that was not mentioned before, unless I am mistaken. I remember checking them (or even adding some) myself back then. I should leave it at that that, as I had said, sorry. Thanks, anyway. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 17:07, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Iain McKee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Does not appear to meet WP:GNG - a WP:BEFORE search turned up no focused coverage, just passing mentions in coverage about projects he was associated with in some way. Also does not appear to meet WP:NACTOR as his roles are mostly non-significant. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 14:08, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 14:08, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:27, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete cannot establish WP:NACTOR as well. Even the roles he is “famous for” are supporting. Vorann Gencov (talk) 14:19, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Akinwunmi Richards (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

There are no enough reliable sources to establish WP:PRODUCER. Ibjaja055 (talk) 12:52, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Bands and musicians, and Nigeria. Shellwood (talk) 13:04, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: He wrote a book which is currently used as a text/guidebook at the study centre in PAU, this should help him pass WP:NAUTHOR 4c or thereabout. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 13:10, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete : Subject fails WP:GNG. No significant coverage from reliable source that are independent of the subject. The only reliable source here was that he donated a non notable book to a University. Book sources are even looking like a WP:FORUM.--Gabriel (talk to me ) 14:16, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Gabriel601, I noticed that you make speedy keep and speedy delete !votes these days, have you read the guidelines on how and when to use these? Best, Reading Beans 02:33, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Will go through that again but not this days like it’s been happening. Thanks for the word anyways. Corrected.--Gabriel (……?) 08:32, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sanvikaa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

WP:TOOSOON. She might meet the WP:NACTOR criteria in the future as her career advances and she gains more references. Charlie (talk) 02:51, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as written. This article has no footnotes, and the only reference is IMDB, which is not reliable. There is a draft, Draft:Sanvikaa, which has footnotes. I have not reviewed the draft in detail, and so do not have an opinion on whether the addition of the sources would satisfy general notability, but addition of information from the draft to the article would be useful. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:21, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, Television, and Madhya Pradesh. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:42, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article's content reads like an interview with an entertainment/fan magazine. AradhanaChatterjee (talk) 05:30, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• 'Delete: As is, the article would be a quick draft or BLPPROD as there's now only an infobox. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 03:33, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Okagbue (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I don’t see how this subject passes WP:GNG. The only thing here was that he won the Gulder ultimate search. The rest are just biography with no source. No evidence he won those awards.Since 2023 the issue tag was placed no fixed has been made. Even when I had to google. The news source fails independent as they are likely stating his quote. Gabriel (talk to me ) 00:50, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, and Nigeria. Gabriel (talk to me ) 00:50, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jazz Henry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

No sources given that meet WP:GNG (her father's website, herself talking, some name drops, and dubiously reliable articles), I didn't find any better ones, and the article also fails WP:NMUSICIAN or WP:ANYBIO. — Alien333 (what I did & why I did it wrong) 18:30, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, and Music. — Alien333 (what I did & why I did it wrong) 18:30, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, Television, and Louisiana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:33, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Funnybros (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Saw this page and wanted to over look it not until almost all the source, possibly all fails to meet Wikipedia independent, reliable and secondary. No point calling him a musician when all the source are from promotion link and also fails in music notability. Since 2023 issue was tagged but no changes. Gabriel (talk to me ) 00:31, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Bands and musicians, and Nigeria. Gabriel (talk to me ) 00:31, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Coverage is looking sparse. These two sources might count towards GNG, although they do look low-quality: [1] [2]. I am unable to consistently access guardian.ng. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 03:08, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I don’t see how those sources you provided meets GNG neither low quality. Meanwhile, i have never heard the word “Low quality” while determining either an article meets GNG or not. If it passes it passes. If doesn’t pass, it doesn’t. You can visit the article page. Check the tag to understand what reliable, independent source it’s all about. The two source you provided failed to be independent because it doesn’t speak from a disinterest of the article subject. Gabriel (talk to me ) 04:00, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  By "low-quality" I meant that the tone is tabloid-style and the articles don't contain a lot of independent analysis. The sources use non-neutral language, but I don't see indications that they have a vested interest in the subject. If the articles were sponsored, for example, they would be completely non-independent, but there is no indication of that (unless there's something I'm missing about the sources). Per WP:IIS, "Independence does not imply even-handedness. An independent source may hold a strongly positive or negative view of a topic or an idea." Helpful Raccoon (talk) 05:27, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The sources could also be non-independent if the coverage is almost entirely based on the subject's own words, which is possible but not obvious. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 08:46, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I understand u. But before i nominated the page. The sources are not just making sense to me. The few newspaper that was cited was just all about Meet Funnybros. The rest are from Nigerian blogs and music link containing Apple Music and the rest. Personal life he bought a Benz the two source cited are from blogs that are not reliable besides buying a Benz has nothing to do with notability. Gabriel (talk to me ) 11:53, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: The article about a comedian that meets WP:GNG. Appearing in independent sources is notable if not presumably. There is a recognition for his skits but I see some unreliable sources, which can be cleaned. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 19:04, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

* Keep: Aside the facts that the article is poorly sourced in terms of headlines. The references are organically written based on the fact fans appreciate his work, this is a notable comedian in Nigeria. I think the article will be improved over time, I suggest an external link should be added to his article i.e (His official YouTube channel). Madeforall1 (talk) 14:44, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Oh my God. Please @Madeforall1 AFD discussion is not meant for all editors. Focus on improving yourself here on Wikipedia before jumping into AFD. U have been using the same tone on your talk page to vote keep here. What business does Wikipedia has with his YouTube page. What do you understand by notable on Wikipedia. Just because someone is famous and you know them by that you call them notable here. I will advise you stay off AFD & start practicing how to write a good article. Gabriel (talk to me ) 15:40, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I’ve been advise by some admins to participate in AFD, and yes I know when an article is notable or not. I’ve seen cases where external links are added, those links can’t be used as references. Madeforall1 (talk) 15:46, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  All your articles created since 2022 to 2024 are all deleted and all you could think of was AFD. If anyone could have advise you. Then you definitely have misunderstood them. My last reply to you on this AFD. So don’t bother responding rather take my advice and put that into practice. It’s definitely gonna help you here. Cheers. Gabriel (talk to me ) 17:13, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks for your advice Sir. Madeforall1 (talk) 20:23, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete — fails WP:GNG. Too few reliable, independent sources. A few rather promotional articles on a small number of online news sites are insufficient to establish notability in my opinion. I can see further coverage on Legit.ng, but the articles seem to be very low-quality "entertainment" pieces (one of them being "Look, this YouTuber bought a flashy car!" — c'mon). The majority of the remaining references are very brief: low-effort pieces mostly focused on social media reactions. There seems to be little else available. Coverage is neither significant nor from particularly reliable sources, as best I can tell. WP:NBASIC. GhostOfNoMeme 16:12, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  That is the point. Almost all the source are just talking about what he has acquired. House, Benz and instagram verification has nothing to do with Wikipedia article for creation. Talking about notable outside of Wikipedia to my best of knowledge as a Nigerian ‘he has never trended for anything’ just a popular skit maker I know as well being famous due to his style of video. Gabriel (talk to me ) 22:07, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree. Articles like "How Female Fan Proposed To Me" and "Skit Maker Funnybros Trends As He Becomes a Mercedes Benz SUV Owner" seem poor references, even if the sources are generally reliable (also, I note the majority of stories about Funnybros on Legit.ng are from the same author; I can't help but wonder if they're paid articles or if there is some connection, but I have no evidence of that). Same goes for "Top 10 Skit Makers To Look Out For In 2023" which is literally just a low-effort listicle in which he's briefly mentioned. I don't think these entertainment fluff pieces are enough to show WP:SIGCOV. I can't find much else on Google beyond these types of articles — and I was mindful to search beyond the English-language sources — that, as Helpful Raccoon noted, are tabloid-style and hardly represent in-depth coverage of the man himself. If this level of referencing were all that is required, I could probably make a thousand Wikipedia articles about various YouTubers who, in reality, are not remotely notable. GhostOfNoMeme 12:07, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Akin Gazi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Non notable actor. Does not meet WP:NACTOR or WP:GNG. Cowlibob (talk) 14:48, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:46, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

: Hi, @Cowlibob: I suppose that WP:NACTOR is more likely to apply. Regarding its criteria: 'Such a person may be considered notable if:

1) The person has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions; or

2) The person has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment.'

I think 1) is more likely to apply. I can see from his page that he has appeared in almost two dozen films and television shows which are sufficiently notable to have their own article. Do you accept that they are notable? If so, is your case simply that his roles are not significant? How do you believe that a significant role is defined for the purposes of notability in WP:NACTOR? Is there a guideline or 'case law' supporting this? Thanks. Jontel (talk) 01:03, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak KEEP Gazi's article seemingly meets the criteria of WP:NACTOR i.e. 'Such a person may be considered notable if the person has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows...' in that he has appeared in multiple (around two dozen) productions which have their own articles (and so are presumably notable) and his generally mid ranking in credited roles are presumably sufficiently significant. The case for keeping the article is strengthened by a career duration at this level of almost two decades WP:SUSTAINED. However, without searching through the reviews of his productions, there appears to be little independent reliable secondary coverage of him, which would be required to pass WP:BASIC. The key guiding text appears to be: 'People are likely to be notable if they meet (WP:NACTOR)...(However)...meeting (WP:NACTOR) does not guarantee that a subject should be included.' i.e. WP:NACTOR alone is not sufficient for notability. Given his roles in so many notable productions, is there a case for giving editors time to find the coverage necessary to meet WP:BASIC, as suggested in WP:ATD, by leaving it for a period? Jontel (talk) 21:58, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Luca Verhoeven (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

After conducting a WP:BEFORE search, it seems to me that this actor/producer does not meet either the general notability guideline or notability guideline on entertainers. DanCherek (talk) 16:53, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Germany. DanCherek (talk) 16:53, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Michael_Verhoeven#Biography: (father; mentioned there; or to Senta Berger#Personal life (mother; also mentioning him) -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 17:19, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! @DanCherek, I actually found the information on the German Wikipedia page. If you believe the article [[Luca Verhoeven]] does not meet the guidelines set by WP:GNG, you can move or delete it accordingly. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 17:20, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: A redirect doesn't really make sense to me, someone expecting an article on Senta Berga would type in Senta Berga - not her son's name. -- D'n'B-t -- 18:29, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 18:54, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Niharika Lyra Dutt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Notability issue Thewikizoomer (talk) 08:05, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, Dance, Television, Theatre, and Delhi. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:55, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep: I do not really see any notability issues here. The subject person has officially credited lead roles in TV series like Paatal Lok[3], Choona[4], and an upcoming series Call Me Bae[5], as well as supporting roles in projects like Music Teacher[6] and Sutliyan[7], which clearly fulfills the NACTOR#1. Besides, The Hindustan Times interview, as well as sources from Times of India, Indian Express, and Yahoo! News that are currently cited in the article have also clearly demonstrated that the subject person has fulfilled GNG. It does not even require a BEFORE, as the information presented in the article is already sufficient to show that the subject person has fulfilled two notability guidelines. —Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul） 11:38, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete, interviews do not help establish notability. Also, Times of India is not suitable for a biography. — 48JCL 16:46, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• NACTOR has clearly been fulfilled but not addressed. And yes, a single interview source itself does not establish notability. But if there are multiple interviews covering a breadth of different topics, this can count towards notability per WP:IV. I am not sure about Times of India, but even if it is excluded, there are still multiple interviews from The Hindustan Times, The Indian Express, or Mid-Day[8], which have fulfilled this requirement imo. Still an obvious keep to me. —Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul） 19:24, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment— I agree wholeheartedly with Prince of Erebor. These are absolutely reliable sources. She is a main cast member in the television show mentioned in the article.

  9t5 (talk) 04:50, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment -- She is 'way down the cast list (not in the top 6 actors listed) in either Paatal Lok or Choona, or in the streaming/web projects, so not an obviously notable career on the face of it. I am not sure whether any of the articles cited are really WP:RSs. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:28, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• The sources I provided show that she is credited as main cast, and they are from The Indian Express, The Hindu, and Variety. I do not believe these three sources have any concerns regarding their reliability. —Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul） 19:24, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment — The subject is clearly a member of the main cast. If you want to argue that a recurring or guest appearance isn’t notable, that’s understandable. However, this actress is a main cast member. The article needs strengthening not deletion.

9t5 (talk) 23:00, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ssilvers, I've done a source assessment. — 48JCL 23:37, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Strong Keep- I disagree strongly disagree with 48JCL. If someone is interviewed by the New York Times, that would make a person mighty notable. You cannot say “interviews don’t prove notability” when that is plainly outrageously untrue.

9t5 (talk) 22:36, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, @9t5, they were not interviewed by the New York Times.
[1] -- From WP:TOI: "The Times of India is considered to have a reliability between no consensus and generally unreliable. It has a bias in favor of the Indian government and is known to accept payments from persons and entities in exchange for positive coverage." Seeing how promotional the article is, I think it is fair to say that this does not help establish notability.
[2] -- From WP:IV#Independence: "Alice Expert talks about herself, her actions, or her ideas: non-independent source." This is basically what the Hindustan Times article discusses. It is fine for a WP:BLP (I think) but It does not establish notability.
[3] -- Another interview.
[4] -- IMDb, not reliable. Per WP:IMDb
[5] -- Another interview.
[6] -- Another interview.
[7] -- Passing mention.
[8] -- Passing mention. — 48JCL 23:35, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment— so you’re saying if it were the NYT then interviews can count? You wrote, and I quote, “interviews do not help establish notability.” It seems that you made a wildly incorrect assertion as justification for your delete vote. Have you done the proper research into the Indian outlet to determine that it is not reliable?

9t5 (talk) 04:46, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

48JCL Then tag the article with {{verify}}? This is a ridiculous use of AfD. 9t5 (talk) 04:57, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I still do not see any address on NACTOR. The subject person has at least three officially credited main roles. GNG does not override SNG. They are companion guidelines, and fulfilling either one is already sufficient in the first place.

I am also unclear on the purpose of your source analysis. I have already analysed them when I cast my !vote and explained why I believe the interviews can serve as evidence of notability per WP:IV. Besides, you have misidentified sources 7 and 8. They are clearly proving the subject person's involvement in certain projects, and are being used to flesh out the article, not to demonstrate SIGCOV on the subject person, just like the five sources I provided in this discussion. I believe I have made a strong case for why this is an obvious keep, and I have not seen any rebuttals directed to my arguments at all, despite the various comments. (Probably because it is inarguable that the subject person has significant roles, given their numerous credited main parts.) —Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul） 05:21, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• And I think 9t5 was raising a hypothetical question, asking what if someone has been interviewed by a reputable source, instead of claiming that the subject person has been interviewed by the NYT. I do not fully agree with this, given that interviews are generally regarded as PS and do not necessarily count towards notability on their own. However, if a person has been interviewed by multiple reputable media outlets like NYT+WSJ+WaPo, this could serve as evidence of notability, and I think this makes sense. You may go ahead and argue that WP:IV is an essay or whatnot, but I doubt that would be a strong and well-reasoned position. —Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul） 05:39, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Prince of Erebor I simply interpret policies a lot more leniently than 48JCL, and am allowed to do so as per WP:5P5. I have been involved in debate with 48JCL before. We are a pretty equal match. Just two different points of view. I respect their dedication to the project. 9t5 (talk) 06:47, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  9t5 and Prince of Erebor, I completely agree that WP:IV makes sense. However, from WP:IV: but a person does not pass GNG if interviews are the only kind of sourcing they have. Also, Prince of Erebor, those sources you provided are passing mentions and do not count towards notability. — 48JCL 11:56, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• @48JCL: I have already mentioned three times in this discussion - the sources I provided are to prove that the subject person has officially credited main/supporting roles in the respective projects, instead of providing SIGCOV about the person. The five roles I have listed already showed that the subject person has fulfilled NACTOR#1, and a Keep is the only reasonable conclusion. The interviews are only additional evidence of notability, since I have noticed many Wikipedians often bring up "coverage" in cases where the subject person has already fulfilled SNG, and this part is to satisfy their concerns. I still do not see any rebuttals on why the subject person fails NACTOR in your multiple replies, and the fact that you now agree the interviews can count towards notability even makes this case not borderline, but a strong Keep. Are you sure you do not want to change your stance, given that your arguments seem to be quite affirmative to a keep rather than a delete? —Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul） 12:23, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 09:42, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It not be deleted. Wikicontriiiiibute (talk) 11:51, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shabana Shajahan Aryan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Previously deleted and salted as Shabana Shajahan/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shabana Shajahan * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:46, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, Television, and Maharashtra. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:56, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: 2 lead roles In notable series have her clearly meet WP:NACTOR. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 16:36, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 16:38, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: I concur with Mushy Yank. At least two co-leading roles in the television series Sembaruthi and Mr. Manaivi. Fulfills NACTOR#1. —Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul） 16:42, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as the previous AFD was closed as Delete and it seems like many sources concern her personal life, not her career.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:42, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jacqueline Lovell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

No significant coverage found. She had three supporting roles in Full Moon Features films that have articles, but that does not seem to be enough - especially with no significant coverage. SL93 (talk) 19:56, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, and California. SL93 (talk) 20:09, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: meets WP:NACTOR for her significant roles (including lead roles) in at least Hideous!, Head of The Family and The Killer Eye, that are notable productions. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 20:29, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The exact guideline says "Such a person may be considered notable if:", not that they are automatically notable. SL93 (talk) 20:31, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And? -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 20:34, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And she is not automatically notable from three roles in three films when none of the roles received significant coverage. SL93 (talk) 20:36, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But do you allow me to think she is and to !vote according to the applicable guideline? -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 20:37, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, but do you allow me to voice my thoughts because AfD is not merely just a vote? SL93 (talk) 20:38, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think your thoughts were pretty clear in your rationale, but feel free, of course. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 20:41, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete While she does meet WP:NACTOR, I cannot find a single source mentioning her other than movie databases, so she does not pass WP:GNG. Gödel2200 (talk) 20:55, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Added some sources. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:02, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The sources are either not independent (words from co-star, an interview) and trivial coverage. One of the sources says, "This film (along with the aforementioned Hideous!) stars the beautiful Jacqueline Lovell, whose career came to screeching halt shortly after this film." Not only is a sentence not significant coverage but I would say that her career coming to a screeching halt shortly after a B-film speaks towards non-notability. SL93 (talk) 21:04, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  In less than 2 minutes, you've read all the sources added? Wow, I confess I am impressed. Anyway, begging to differ; even if her career as a b-movie star stopped it's sufficiently notable; and anyway again, I've added even more, and more exists, not that it is necessary imv. I disagree with almost everything you said but will leave it at that, thanks. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:22, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Why would I need to read the full sources when I just need to use CTRl+F to search for "Jacqueline Lovell"? Why would I need to read full sources to know that something is an interview? Same with knowing that something is just a film database like IMDb and TV.com? SL93 (talk) 21:24, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The sources added (by the time of your first reply to me, I will check the new sources now) do not constitute significant coverage. Here is an analysis of them:

1. [9] Only two passing mentions
2. [10] This is unreliable per WP:IMDB
3. [11] This is an interview, so it is not independent
4. [12] This is a movie summary, and only makes three passing mentions of her
5. [13] Only one passing mention
6. [14] Only one passing mention
7. [15] Only one passing mention
8. [16] This is a movie, which is not independent of the subject
9. [17] Only two passing mentions
10. [18] Again, this is a list of movies, so not significant coverage
11. [19] This is another movie, which is not independent of the subject

Gödel2200 (talk) 21:25, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here is an analysis of the five new sources added, which still do not constitute significant coverage.

1. [20] Only two passing mentions
2. [21] This is an encyclopedia of movies, with only two passing mentions
3. [22] This source does devote a few sentences to talking about her, but this is only a review of her performance
4. [23] Only two passing mentions
5. [24] Only two passing mentions

Gödel2200 (talk) 21:40, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: I tend to agree with the source analysis above; the best I could find was [25], it's not quite enough for notability. Delete for lack of sourcing, not meeting ACTOR. Oaktree b (talk) 00:10, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: meets WP:NACTOR for her significant roles (including lead roles) in at least Hideous!, Head of The Family and The Killer Eye, that are notable productions. There is no added need to also satisfy GNG. The two are companion guidelines, GNG is not a trump card. duffbeerforme (talk) 02:51, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete This is not a clear cut case, but it is more on the delete side with not enough WP:RS coverage to meet WP:GNG guidelines. Go4thProsper (talk) 19:41, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Passes NACTOR through Head of the Family, Hideous! and The Killer Eye. Also has SIGCOV in Femme Fatales here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here. Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 14:03, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:07, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This article has significantly changed since its AfD nomination. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 12:10, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ginny Holder (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Non notable actress, Bar Holby City her roles have all been one-bit/minor roles, Cannot find anything in-depth on Google News (all are gossip/mentions), Fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG –Davey2010^Talk 18:14, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 18:32, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:50, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep In addition to her recurring role in Holby City, she also made recurring appearances in Death in Paradise (TV series) (this is not cited in the article, but see this source, for instance). Thus, because she has had significant roles in these two series, she satisfies the criteria of WP:ENT. Gödel2200 (talk) 21:14, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Probably not enough coverage... I find this [26] and a bunch of articles in Hello! about celebrity gossip, but nothing to use for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 00:39, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Meets WP:NACTOR indeed, with at least 2 significant roles in notable productions, as Gödel2200 explained.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 08:34, 9 July 2024 (UTC) Update: at least 3 (see page).-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 09:22, 9 July 2024 (UTC) Update; 6 (PLEASE see 1st Afd, where other productions and sources are mentioned...and that was closed as a clear and fair Keep)....-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 09:27, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This is a tough one because while she does have a fair amount of credits, she herself has no significant third-party coverage despite being in the business for three decades, which is evident by her article having no content since the beginning, literally consisting of two sentences and a filmography. She is merely a byproduct in content focusing on Death in Paradise, and "meet the cast"–type articles do not meet SIGCOV. 💥Casualty ^{• Hop along. •} 08:50, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Added a few things to the page.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 09:40, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Satisfies WP:NACTOR per above. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:05, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: I disagree with Casualty's statement, which seems to have mixed up GNG and SNG. The subject person has officially credited main roles in the television series Death in Paradise and The Capture, as well as a recurring role in Holby City which earned her a nomination for Female Performance in TV at the Screen Nation Film and Television Awards. This means the subject person has at least three significant roles in notable projects, which clearly fulfills NACTOR#1 and should be kept. —Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul） 16:50, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as she had recurring roles in multiple shows — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sterencio (talk • contribs) 22:56, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there is a disagreement on whether the subject passes or fails NACTOR.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:13, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Princesa Lea (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:NACTOR due to lack of WP:SIGCOV. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 04:15, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, Canada, and Mexico. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 04:15, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: meets WP:NACTOR with some significant roles in notable films (also see Sp WP). And WP:GNG, https://heraldodemexico.com.mx/espectaculos/2021/10/18/princesa-lea-que-fue-de-la-famosa-vedette-canadiense-del-cine-de-ficheras-345367.html https://www.debate.com.mx/show/Conoce-a-las-tres-actrices-del-Cine-de-Oro-que-eran-la-Karely-Ruiz-de-su-epoca-20230117-0311.html https://www.gq.com.mx/entretenimiento/articulo/vedettes-iconicas-cine-mexicano ; https://www.eleconomista.com.mx/arteseideas/Vedettes-femeninas-y-empoderadas-20161206-0102.html among other things. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 09:04, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Slightly Notable, article needs more citations and improvements. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Feellingfly (talk • contribs) 11:53, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'd like to hear from more, hopefully experienced, editors.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:49, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Besides the above, there's also this which should be enough for GNG. Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 14:28, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yabani (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I am not sure but want a definitive consensus on the notability of this TV series. First off, the article doesn't meet our guideline per WP:NFP–there is totally a decline of SIGCOV, or maybe because I didn't find either, but I tried searching only to see release dates announcements, etc, and thus, doesn't satisfy WP:SIRS.

On another note, I found out that the additional criteria WP:NFO, and WP:NFIC may push for the userfication, given thoughts that it may still meet notability at the highest release (seems like it has been released), and because it started notable actors and actresses. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 06:54, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Film, Television, Entertainment, and Turkey. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 06:55, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Added a few things for verification; a lot of so-so coverage exists (in Turkish, English) and, although not great, it seems to show some attention to the production. Notable cast. A redirect to producer/network is imv warranted, so very opposed to deletion.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 14:26, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, if there was a Redirect, what would the target article be?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:25, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The target if redirect is chosen could be NOW_(Turkish_TV_channel)#Weekly_series.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 17:12, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, it was one of most popular shows of the last season of Turkish TV. Don't have time to look now but I'm sure episodes received significance reviews, attention etc. Tehonk (talk) 04:43, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You need to provide the reviews. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 15:53, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, redirect is better. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 05:58, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Prashanth Venkataramanujam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Non-notable BLP. Sources relate either to Patriot Act or Hasan Minhaj. – Broccoli & Coffee ^{(Oh hai)} 21:11, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Patriot Act with Hasan Minhaj, you mean? And he might mean WP:CREATIVE as creator/writer of this series... -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 13:07, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Television. – Broccoli & Coffee ^{(Oh hai)} 21:11, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:04, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 19:59, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:19, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:25, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chidananda S Naik (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Some information on this guy: Chidananda made the sixteen minute short film Sunflowers Were the First Ones to Know... in four days at the end of his one-year television course in the Film and Television Institute of India. The 16-minute film is based on a Kannada folk tale about a rooster not coming causing the sun not to rise in a village. It won the La Cinéf award at the Cannes Film Festival. This is the main content on doesn't warrant an article here. Anything (Essentially, just the award) you need about him is already online.

Almost every single source on the internet about Sunflowers Were the First Ones to Know says short film wins Cannes award and nothing else. This is a case of WP:TOO EARLY. Why not wait till he directs feature films?

I am acting in good faith because two users see User_talk:Mushy_Yank#Notability_2 and second opinion Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Film/Indian_cinema_task_force#Does one film guarantee notability? claims that this person does not pass Wikipedia:Notability (people).

The critical reception section is a stretch, no matter which Indian film won in Cannes, the comment would be the same. Another source about this guy's short film from Variety: [27] (again, only about the award). This AfD is a complete waste of time (caused by undo of redirect to Cinéfondation saying take it to AfD [28]) DareshMohan (talk) 07:35, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Karnataka. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:42, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Cinéfondation#Prize winners: A redirect seems like a good ATD so far. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 10:47, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Subject passes WP:ANYBIO#1. The significant award/honor here is 1st Prize - Premier Prix award from Cinéfondation, 2024 Cannes Film Festival, where the film was judged among 18 films globally. The award is well know and has it's own article on Wikipedia, Cinéfondation. There is coverage from multiple published sources that are also reliable. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 14:24, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I am not fiercely opposed to keep if everyone agrees he is notable but I think it should be made clear that 1) the award itself has no page, it's the foundation that promotes it which has 2) it is technically the film (a student film) that receives the award, not its director. You don't think that if we decide ANYBIO applies in this case, we would establish a precedent setting the bar extremely low? I do. I don't think that WP:DIRECTOR appplies anyway, coverage on the film being insufficiently significant imv. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 14:56, 29 June 2024 (UTC) On second thoughts "unstriking" (virtually) my comment: I do consider that "coverage on the film (is) insufficiently significant imv." for the director to meet WP:DIRECTOR requirements. Not unsignificant nor trivial and mentioning a significant award, yes but not enough at least for WP:DIRECTOR, I should think.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 19:11, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The foundation is notable for the award it gives out. It was started in 1998 and the award has been given annually since then. The award, technically, belongs to the director for being the brains behind it, which is why the director's name is mentioned in the 2024 Cannes Film Festival and Cinéfondation article instead of the producer's name. Nandi Awards is only significant in Andhra Pradesh, whereas Cinéfondation brings coverage from Variety (magazine) as well as Hindustan Times, which would you consider a more popular award now?

  Coverage on the film being insufficiently significant? Here are some reliable sources that explicitly mention the film's name in the title: [29][30][31][32][33][34]. Expecting a breakdown, analysis or a review for a film that has only been screened once(AFAIK) is absurd. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 15:20, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  There are some articles that are indeed significant in the links you provided here. Not commenting on the rest, if I may. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 15:37, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  But since you kindly asked me (not sure the question was meaningful or not ironic): yes, obviously I find the Nandi way more "popular" than the Cinéfondation premier prix, yes. That's not exactly the point, I'm afraid. Here, the fact that this is a student short film is for me, so far, an issue, and I still favour a redirect, but as I said, not fiercely opposed to keep, especially in light of the sources you added presented here (most of them also being on the page, except if I am not mistaken, the article in the New India Express and DDNews). -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 15:48, 29 June 2024 (UTC) (edited my comment for clarification as my comment may have been misleading . Also adding that it's very likely that among the journalists or papers who mentioned the award and interviewed the director, not many if any at all have seen the film; and for me, this too is a problem; basically the question remains: can ANYBIO apply if the award, significant or not, is attributed to the work? Can WP:DIRECTOR apply in a case where coverage, although somehow significant as it addresses the film, is only mentions of the plot, the award, and in some sources of a few facts about production? Most sources are indeed generally reliable, although various articles are not being bylined, which I personally don't mind but is regularly pointed out negatively when it comes to Indian film, some users considering such coverage unreliable as a rule (I don't :D). I am still not sure, and still consider a redirect to be the best outcome. Maybe it's absurd to require further analysis of the work but can we really bypass that requirement just because the film has only been screened in Cannes, and not by the journalists who wrote the article, and is short? Not sure. Sorry for the cascading clarifications. I don't think I will change my mind from now, nor positively nor negatively. Even if one considers that it's the film after all that's notable and the article about the director is only here as a form of substitute for the article about the short, I am not certain that the premier prix at Cinéfondation, although significant, can be considered a major award nor that the coverage is substantial enough. Maybe the said coverage cannot be more than what it is now for obvious reasons, maybe, but still. I've done, again, some further searching and there's also coverage in French: https://lepetitjournal.com/inde/actualites/triomphe-indien-au-festival-de-cannes-2024-386190 or this blog; https://www.inde-cineskope.com/2024/05/cannes-2024-payal-kapadia-et-linde.html Good luck.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 19:11, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  What's stopping you from doing a WP:BEFORE? There are many reliable sources for the subject and the film apart from the the six I have cited.

  The coverage that follows from someone meeting an additional criteria is just a bonus. Most Olympic athletes, older MLAs, sports personalities, politicians and judges do not have significant coverage. There are many articles with only database entries and primary sources as references simply because they meet an additional criteria and are presumed to be notable. The basic criterion that has been followed until now is that if an award has a standalone article and someone has received that award, they are presumed to be notable. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 19:35, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  What's stopping you from doing a WP:BEFORE? is a very undue, rude and aggressive comment. I've searched for sources extensively THREE OR FOUR TIMES. Just look at my comments (and at 2 other venues) and presented sources myself (you're welcome). Again, the award has no page, and the film received the award, not him. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 19:42, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  If you think that a regional award is more popular than Cinéfondation and that there is no substantial coverage when the coverage is not even required, then I cant help you. Ciao Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 20:09, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been posted on Talk:Cannes Film Festival, Talk:2024 Cannes Film Festival, Talk:Cinéfondation, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Film festivals task force and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Awards to draw a wider range of editors for discussion. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 14:55, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: So he won a sidebar competition at Cannes. The film might be notable, this individual isn't. Redirect to the film's article, if it's deemed notable. This is too early to have a wikipedia article for this person. Oaktree b (talk) 16:15, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - clear pass of ANYBIO #1. If I were able to assess and read the non-English language sources, I'm confident there would be a clear NBASIC pass as well. ANYBIO doesn't require significant coverage of the person outside of the work, by the way - that is pretty much the whole point of that criterion. Newimpartial (talk) 15:12, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Newimpartial: Here is the sources in Indian language [35] which also just say that the film won the award. So is the short film notable or him notable -- I would say the short film maybe. DareshMohan (talk) 21:31, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  And I would agree with you, DareshMohan. ANYBIO clearly states, "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor" (emphasis mine), while all sources mention that the film received the award. And while I would certainly admit that for a student short film the award is significant, I wouldn't transfer that significance to the person directly. Even regarding the film, it is judged as a student film and I personally am reluctant to consider that in itself the award (although clearly an achievement) is enough to make the short notable (the notability for films is more strict and the award needs to be considered a major award, which this one is not imv). As for the director, even less so, then. Of course, he directed it, but then WP:DIRECTOR would be the relevant guideline. And see my view about that guideline applying or not, above. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:08, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I believe you both (Mushy Yank and DareshMohan) are misreading WP:DIRECTOR, the point of which is that when the works attributable to a particular creator are notable, that makes their creator notable. This is a major, and well-documented, limitation to the WP:NOTINHERITED principle, which continues to apply in the other direction - the non-notable films of a notable director are not necessarily notable.

  What is more, your interptetation of ANYBIO #1 does not, I think, reflect the general understanding. While for collective works, the distinction betweent the work and its creators may be significant for notability. However, the idea that the sole author of a book that wins a major award could somehow not therefore be notable does not reflect a coherent reading of NCREATIVE, in my view (which I believe is the general one). A film of this kind, where the director is universally regarded as its creator, follows the same logic as a book IMO. Newimpartial (talk) 22:26, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Sorry to insist, but I think we've read WP:DIRECTOR quite correctly: our point is precisely that we don't think (at leat in my case) the evidence proving that that short student film is notable (work, singular, not plural in the present case) is compelling either, given the type of coverage or and the nature of the award it received. I've already repeated that various times. As for ANYBIO, feel free to change the wording or phrasing of the guideline if you think it's too limitative, but I've quoted the current one and it's pretty clear. The person has to receive the award and the said award (concerning persons, obviously) needs to be both well-known and significant. If you think that evidence shows that the work is clearly notable according to the guideline, let's agree to disagree. If you think that the award received by a film can be automatically transferred to its director and that this is the general and correct view, sure, I understand but that's not what the guideline says. If you think that that award is well-known and significant, sure, maybe, regarding student short/medium length films but certainly not for the notability of a "director" (who was still a student when he received it). That is for me setting the interpretative bar slightly too low but as I said above, not fiercely opposed to keep this if everyone agrees this inclusive interpretation is acceptable and the coverage about the film show it's a notable work. Thank you. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 07:22, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't see any reasonable doubt that Sunflowers... is a notable film. It clearly meets WP:NFILM #3, and I have seen for myself the multiple reliable sources documenting this claim to notability.

  And I will say again: the point of WP:CREATIVE, whether for authors or filmmakers, is to offer guidance for the atypical case documented at WP:INHERITED - people who are specifically responsible for a notable creative work, whether as authors or as film directors, are therefore notable. That's what a significant or well-known work is - a notable one - and there is no consensus to change this well-established standard to require more than one work for this principle to apply. Newimpartial (talk) 15:57, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Just to clarify: I never said that more than one work is needed to meet WP:DIRECTOR nor did I mention WP:INHERITED myself (I never do). That's not my point. One notable work is enough imv. But, allow me to repeat myself one last time, WP:NFILM#3, that you mention, requires a MAJOR award, that's the word in the guideline. Major. Again, the Cinéfondation Premier prix is certainly an achievement for a student film but I wouldn't call it a major award. (See this, for example). And I find it therefore quite reasonable, even considering the existing coverage, to doubt whether that student short film is notable enough according to the requirements of Wikipedia. If it is not, a redirect for its student-director seems to be, so far, the kindest outcome imv. If everyone thinks it is, feel free to create the page about that short student film. I for one, would wait for its director to become a professional one and/or for the short film to attract in-depth attention from reviewers who might have watched it. But that's just me. Thank you. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 10:08, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No consensus and discussion is continuing up to the time of relisting. We have basically two very different interpretations of policies and that is not easy to reconcile.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:25, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 13:33, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: I have invited Martineden83, Οἶδα, Bearcat, Extended Cut, The One I Left, ZoolverLaurenschneider210, Jenny8lee, Sj and Fuzheado to draw a wider range of informed but uninvolved editors to this discussion as it has been relisted without any further comments. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 19:21, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The discussion above seems rather like hair-splitting to me. The question of whether the award is given "to the film" or "to the filmmaker" is a moot point that has nothing to do with notability vis-à-vis film awards, for starters — regardless of whether the award is technically "for the film" or "for the filmmaker", the filmmaker is still the one who has to walk up on stage to accept it and give a thank-you speech either way, because the film is not itself a sentient entity, so that argument is introducing a meaningless distinction. For another thing, the question of whether our article about Cinéfondation is "about the award" or "about the organization that presents the award" is also a meaningless and irrelevant distinction, because you could make that same "how much is or isn't this article about the event vs. about the organization that presents the event" argument about every single article we have about any event at all, so that's just not a meaningful point of debate when it comes to questions of whether an award makes its winners notable or not. And finally, the award was presented at Cannes, which is one of the most famous and notable film festivals in the world.
  To be fair, not all of the films or directors listed in the Cinéfondation article have articles yet, but that's also not a notability issue — any of them can, and will, have articles if and when somebody gets around to writing articles about them. And there is additionally no rule that filmmakers always have to have made feature films before they become eligible for Wikipedia articles — short films do tend to be harder to write good, GNG-compliant articles about, since they tend to get less coverage than feature films do, but films are not automatically non-notable just because they're short, and can absolutely still pass notability criteria (such as winning notability-making awards) just the same, so "short vs. feature" doesn't impact notability criteria for films or their makers either: that's a question of whether you can support the article with decent sources or not, and not a question of the film's length itself.
  So, really, what it comes down to is whether the article features enough WP:GNG-worthy sourcing to properly establish that notability criteria have been met — and while I'd suggest replacing footnote #7 with a secondary source instead of a primary one, all of the other six footnotes are just fine and absolutely add up to enough. Bearcat (talk) 20:25, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect – First place short at a sidebar is not significant coverage of the director. The award guarantees a future slot higher up in the Cannes program for a first feature, but until then the existing coverage pertains to the film. If we were discussing a winner of the Caméra d'or, Prix Un Certain Regard or Palme d'Or du Court Métrage this would be different. But it feels like we've gone several notches down and called it a major award because it's Cannes adjacent. An article for the film would however pass WP:GNG. Οἶδα (talk) 20:53, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Director's Fortnight, the Semaine de la critique and the Queer Palm, all of which are clearly notability-making awards presented at Cannes, are also sidebars rather than "the main competition" — so if the word "sidebar" were any kind of notability extinguisher on its own, at least half of all the film articles we have whose notability is Cannes-derived would have to be deleted. The distinction that matters when it comes to Cannes is festival vs. market, not festival main program vs festival sidebar program. Bearcat (talk) 21:09, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My contention was that the Cinéfondation sidebar is particularly eclipsed by the official selection and other sections. I do not believe first place at Cinéfondation is a major award conferring significant coverage to the director themself. Unfortunately I do not believe this matter will be resolved any deeper than the 'hair-splitting' discussion that already played out above. So I will resign the issue to my vote. Οἶδα (talk) 21:35, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On a side note, the notability guideline page for BLPs does not mention anywhere that significant coverage is a requirement for someone to pass WP:DIRECTOR or WP:ANYBIO. I believe we have more content about Chidananda S Naik than about the short film that won the award, so redirecting would only result in the loss of content, leaving us with a very short stub article. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 04:55, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are merely repeating the discussion Mushy Yank already developed above. Reply there. Οἶδα (talk) 16:05, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect. Creating an article for the film and redirecting to that seems reasonable Laurenschneider210 (talk) 22:08, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• As an inclusionist, this seems fine, as does a rdr to the film for now. Either way, it could certainly be fleshed out with more information as it exists. – SJ + 10:10, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Isha Malviya (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

The article heavily relies on unreliable sources as per WP:ICTFSOURCES. Single significant role in Udaariyaan. Does not meet WP:SIGCOV and WP:N. Editingmylove (talk) 08:15, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, Beauty pageants, Fashion, and Madhya Pradesh. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:31, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: At least one significant award won and 3 significant award nominations have her meet WP:ANYBIO imv. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 10:23, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Delete - Eye raising nomination, but that aside, I think this is close. There is a lot of fancruft references, interviews, general announcements, WP:NEWSORGINDIA, etc. And, winning an award or appearing on a television show does not give inherent notability (I think the Indian Telly Awards individual categories may not meet notability either). However, there are at least two references that are bylined and not just routine announcements here and here. I'll reserve a !vote at the moment in hopes someone can point out coverage that isn't routine. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:09, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have not seen anyone provide coverage that would show notability so changing to a delete !vote. --CNMall41 (talk) 15:49, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• weak delete: most coverage is about the TV show Big Boss [36], I wouldn't call it extensive coverage. This is a RS, but what's used in the article are all marginal reliability sources per Cite Highlighter, so I'm not sure we have enough to keep the article. Oaktree b (talk) 22:46, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: The user who has nominated the page for deletion is a new account created solely to ensure the page is deleted. The previous two nominations have also been a result of fandom war. As for the notability, it has been established the last 2 times as well. She has done 2 lead roles, one major reality, show, numerous music videos, a web series in post production, notable award nominations and wins. [FYI, Indian Telly Awards and Indian Television Academy Awards are two of the most notable ITV Awards regardless of whether the pages are well updated on Wikipedia or not.] The actress has sufficient coverage, apart from all her work and has more on the way. Hasty deletion to fulfill online fan wars makes no sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.39.32.83 (talk) 10:55, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Looking at your contibutions which is only this comment and anyone can say that you are the account created to this comment only. Columbidae5 (talk) 15:03, 1 July 2024 (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/2024 June 24. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:16, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Joe (talk) 09:48, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: The article is looking like fan made article who is doing undo removed content. Neutral point of view is also missing in the article. It looks like promotional content. Columbidae5 (talk) 12:58, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Notable personality. Filmography with different credits. Nominations and wins in terms of two known awards. Additionally, this seems to be another potential attempt by online supporters of other actors. The previous deletion discussion of this page was quite similar and was started by a fan of another ITV actress. This seems to be yet another example of social media hate propaganda. OCDD (talk)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 21:21, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as she is a notable actress and model who has gained significant recognition for her role in the popular television series "Udaariyaan," contributing to her widespread popularity. Additionally, her career achievements and public interest make her a relevant figure in the entertainment industry --RodrigoIPacce (talk) 17:54, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Per nom and Columbidae5's comment above. M S Hassan (talk | contributions) 09:28, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Please do not focus on the nominator and instead consider whether NACTOR is met and assess the quality of the sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:34, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: The sources are all passing mentions within routine announcements and contain zero biographical detail. Inclusion on Wikipedia is determined by sourcing, not by number of awards, award nominations, popularity, public interest or strong fanbase. The actress clearly doesn't meet WP:NACTOR.--Ilovetvshows (talk) 16:00, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: This is decent coverage, but it's quite short. [37], Still not quite enough. Oaktree b (talk) 00:30, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete: Not seeing enough in-depth coverage that's not from poor quality sources or paid/churnalism. Ravensfire (talk) 21:06, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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