This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Women. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.
Adding a new AfD discussion
Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:
Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Women|~~~~}} 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.
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 Women. 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.
This list is also part of the larger list of deletion debates related to People.
Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:
WP:BLP of a writer, not properly sourced as passing WP:AUTHOR. The attempted notability claim here, that she won a literary award, would be fine if the article were sourced properly, but is not "inherently" notable without sourcing -- an award has to itself be a notable award in the first place before it can make its winners notable for winning it, so an award claim cannot clinch inclusion without sourcing for it, but I had to remove the citation that was present here as it led to a squatted page that tried to make me download a virus rather than anything that verified any literary awards, and that left the article completely unsourced. Meanwhile, the award she purportedly won does not have a Wikipedia article at all, and instead substitutes a link to the biography of the other unrelated writer the award was named for. On a WP:BEFORE search, meanwhile, the closest thing to an acceptable source I found was one book review on a WordPress blog -- and even if I were to overlook the fact that it's WordPress, I just can't overlook the even bigger issue with it: this article was created in 2011 by an editor with the username Mohammad Rajabpur, while that WordPress review was written in 2020 with a bylined author credit of Mohammad Rajabpur, strongly implying the possibility of conflict of interest editing by a friend or colleague. And I can otherwise confirm that she's never had any WP:GNG-worthy coverage in Canada at all, as her name brings up absolutely nothing in either ProQuest or Newspapers.com. Since I cannot read Farsi, I'm willing to withdraw this if somebody with better access to Iranian media than I've got can find evidence that she's had GNG-worthy coverage in Iran, but nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt her from having to have any sources. Bearcat (talk) 17:51, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Amazon sales listings, and many other sales listings, are what come up. This [1] appears to be a review in a RS, but I'm not sure. I don't find anything in Scholar or Jstor. Oaktree b (talk) 23:50, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as its current state does not meet WP:BIO; its sole source does not seem reliable and does not establish notability. SunTunnels (talk) 22:28, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find book reviews, nor any sourcing the acting career. Plenty of sites selling the books though... Not passing ACTOR or AUTHOR notability. Oaktree b (talk) 23:56, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: and replace the section within Preeti to a see also. Alternatively. split Preeti between the article about the name and the disambiguation links. Or replace Preethi (name) with a redirect. The article should not be deleted. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 00:40, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and revert the recent addition of adding "Preethi" to the "Preeti" name page. Unless sources show these are the same name they should be treated as separate. --Tavix(talk) 17:44, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Most sources on the internet seem to indicate that Preeti and Preethi are related, though I'm not sure how many are reliable. In the instance that they are, I'd probably agree with Eastmain's proposal to redirect Preethi to Preeti. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 20:57, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree that they're related, but my issue is that they're not the same name. For example, Thomas and Tomas are separate pages, as is Katherine and Katerine. --Tavix(talk) 22:26, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reply - If this is the case, let's have separate pages for "Preity" and "Priti". --Jax 0677 (talk) 22:51, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Valid concern although I'd say those pages are split because many more people have those names and there's a linguistic difference. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 03:38, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This article has sources including BBC, Jersey Evening Post and ESPNcricinfo and links to several other pages on Wikipedia. The subject is a player for the Jersey women's national cricket team with 19 caps including in a T20 world cup qualifying tournament. I was trying to create a complete set of pages for the Jersey women's cricket team excluding those players who have done nothing of note of course. Coverage of places such as Jersey is sparse so sources are often hard to come by. This does not make the subject matter irrelevant. Shrug02 (talk) 23:59, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No significant coverage about this individual found. What's now used in the article is trivial coverage, name drops and twitter posts. I don't find anything we can use. Oaktree b (talk) 01:09, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Many of those look potentially notable (worthy of an article) – I wouldn't have them all deleted just out of being upset over this one being potentially deleted. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:26, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the kind words (it is truly appreciated and nice to read) but I'm just getting ahead of the curve. While other reviewers have seen no issue with any of them it seems I have fallen foul of one that sees no value in small places or sports not popular in certain parts of the world. I'm just saving them the time of hunting down my articles so they can have them removed. Shrug02 (talk) 17:09, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would ask you to focus on the content and not the contributor. If I "see no value in small places or sports not popular in certain parts of the world," why would most of my article creations be focused on exactly that? JTtheOG (talk) 19:28, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea what articles you have created. I am only replying to someone who commented that my work had value. I'm more interested in adding to knowledge rather than removing it. I would rather not engage further with you as I found last night's interaction distressing enough. Thank you. Shrug02 (talk) 19:52, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This article has sources including BBC, Jersey Evening Post and ESPNcricinfo and links to several other pages on Wikipedia. The subject is a player for the Jersey women's national cricket team with 11 caps including in a T20 world cup qualifying tournament. What is the problem with it? Shrug02 (talk) 22:23, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Shrug02: How many of those include significant coverage of the subject? The number of caps and/or competitions played are not relevant. JTtheOG (talk) 22:58, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have added more information and sources as discussed with you. I was trying to create a complete set of pages for the Jersey women's cricket team excluding those players who have done nothing of note of course. Coverage of places such as Jersey is sparse so sources are often hard to come by. This does not make the subject matter irrelevant. I see you have now nominated a second of my pages for deleting and no doubt the rest will follow. I don't understand all these terms and abbreviations being used and I can't imagine I'll save them from deleting. I have worked for many hours to create these pages and in good faith. I will now stop. Thank you. Shrug02 (talk) 23:31, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Many of those look potentially notable (worthy of an article) – I wouldn't have them all deleted just out of being upset over this one being potentially deleted. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:22, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the kind words (it is truly appreciated and nice to read) but I'm just getting ahead of the curve. Also, as you will have now seen as you've commented on both, it is not just one article that is being deleted. While other reviewers have seen no issue with any of them it seems I have fallen foul of one that sees no value in small places or sports not popular in certain parts of the world. I'm just saving them the time of hunting down my articles so they can have them removed. Shrug02 (talk) 17:11, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is normally the point where I would complain about the previous !vote not considering WP:PROF and where I would point out that sigcov is irrelevant for PROF. But in this case, the previous !vote is on-point. It's obvious she is far too junior to pass PROF, and the only hope is enough sigcov to pass WP:GNG instead. The only possibility, the koiduaeg.ee source, might be a reliable source for all I know but it doesn't have much depth of coverage about the subject. Nothing else in the article or in my web searches was even close. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:03, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The individual in question appears to be a non-notable researcher and climate activist. There is no significant coverage of their work in reliable third-party sources. The existing references consist mainly of personal profiles or brief mentions. GSS💬 15:52, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Nigeria. GSS💬 15:52, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This woman has appeared for her national team, but fails WP:GNG due to lack of in-depth coverage. My Google searches are limited to brief mentions on news websites as well as database. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌClara A. Djalim໒꒱˚｡⋆ 09:03, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 17:57, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. GiantSnowman 18:00, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article could have a better career section, but I have heard about Dr Vandyck outside of WP for her academic career, and believe from this that she is notable. Probably meets WP:NACADEMIC at least if someone can collect sources on her publications. Kingsif (talk) 21:57, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There are a number of sources about the subject, but all centre around (what they see as) her unusual name. Vandyck's research has not yet made significant impact in her discipline to meet WP:NACADEMIC. All in all WP:TOOSOON. –Ploni💬 00:06, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed that most articles focus on her name in some way, but there are other Wikipedia articles with that kind of focus, like Place names considered unusual. Not sure why coverage for that aspect would be necessarily less legitimate. Benny White (talk) 02:09, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Meets WP:BASIC and I don't think the exclusions apply. There are many reliable sources. Most are from the same timeframe (2019), but not all. One that is currently included in the article is from 2009. Benny White (talk) 02:09, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No pass of WP:Prof with zero cites of GS. Not enough achievement yet for WP:GNG. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:36, 20 June 2024 (UTC).[reply]
Redirect and lightly mergetoNaming in the United States. I'm seeing a single source from 2009, and a flurry of sources from 2019, all human interest stories about the unusual name. This looks like a WP:BLP1E to me. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 14:03, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per WP:BLP1E, all coverage is a single point in time about her getting a PhD. No pass of WP:Prof and no pass of GNG. --hroest 17:07, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Article is notable in my opinion, but could benefit from more sources. Mjks28 (talk) 05:26, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:SPORTCRIT. School sports isn't notable in the world of athletics, and coverage of children's athletics is not significant enough for Wikipedia. WP:TOOSOON with a few years at best. Geschichte (talk) 19:50, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While I agree that the vast majority of American high school athletes do not merit coverage on Wikipedia, this specific athlete is not aWP:RUNOFTHEMILL one, and has substantial coverage by independent sources as shown by this Google Search, such as [1], [2], [3], [4]. As stated by Clearfrienda for the Cooper Lutkenhaus article, this amount of coverage satisfies WP:BASIC/GNG. KnowledgeIsPower9281 (talk) 00:08, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The sources given by KnowledgeIsPower9281 appear to contain significant coverage of the subject and meet the WP:GNG. Let'srun (talk) 13:20, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Her notability cannot be proven by independent and reliable sources. Only IFEX source is good, but it is not adequate for passing GNG. As a result of the research conducted on the person, it was not possible to find independent and reliable sources. Considering there are not enough resources, deletion is appropriate. KadıMessage 20:39, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She is a notable singer, mostly known for musical performances in Kurdish. More than enough sources are available, from reliable news outlets like Rudaw, Evrensel, NTV, Hurriyet, Gazete Duvar
These are promotional content for promote her new album. These sources do not contribute for passing notability criterias. You can read trwiki discussion by translating in order to see the analysis. Best wishes. KadıMessage 09:34, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DoczillaOhhhhhh, no! 21:53, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I don't find book reviews, so not passing AUTHOR. No mentions in media that i can find, what's now used for sourcing in the article is primary or linked to paper sources that I can't locate online. Oaktree b (talk) 15:15, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Does that somehow not qualify? I do not understand. KreftMM (talk) 15:55, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@KreftMM: By "reviews" we normally mean articles discussing books and covering them in depth, not just reviews on shopping sites. Mdann52 (talk) 05:35, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for that feedback. It will help me in other regards - however, I am no longer working on Judith's Wikipedia page in any regard. KreftMM (talk) 16:17, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. in WP:AUTHOR, one of the criteria for notability is that 'The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique'. It looks to me like Wright is either the originator of the concept of soft addiction or at the very least a leading author on the topic. Also, I can find book reviews- I am not sure where you were looking.Spiralwidget (talk) 15:45, 19 June 2024
@Spiralwidget: I note the soft addiction thing - but I don't know if it's a "significant new" concept, as the concept seemed to be known and studied under the name "behaviour addition" from before her time (and the article redirects there now) - however with that being the only claim to notability, I didn't think it met the bar. Mdann52 (talk) 16:42, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(UTC) EDIT: I have to review this as instead a Comment. I could not find reviews outside of Amazon Books and she seems to receive remarkably little attention by major publications.
I'll admit that I don't know what types of sources are preferred on Wikipedia, but I can assure you I can provide the right kind if you educate me. KreftMM (talk) 16:07, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not too knowledgeable either, but per WP:RSPRIMARY, Wikipedia prefers secondary sources over others. Procyon117 (talk) 17:05, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per sources provided by Isaidnoway, WP:AUTHOR#2 is satisfied. Sal2100 (talk) 15:44, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless an editor can provide references to reliable, fully independent sources that devote significant coverage to Sewell Wright. Sources brought forward are passing mentions of her, and quotations from her, generated by the marketing campaigns for her books. Sources that call her a "life coach and lifestyles expert" are clearly parroting her self promotional activities. Yes, she coined the phrase "soft addiction" but that refers to a psychiatric condition and she has no known formal training in psychiatry or psychology or psychotherapy or counseling or anything relevant. As for Amazon reviews, they are worthless for establishing notability since Amazon is in the business of selling almost everything including non-notable books by non-notable authors, as in this case. She is definitely not a "leading author" on Behavioral addiction. Many of the leading authors are in the reference section of that well-referenced article, and she is not among them. Cullen328 (talk) 17:47, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per reasons given by Cullen328, at least for now. No editor has yet provided examples of significant coverage of "soft addiction" in fully independent non-promotional venues/outlets. As far as I can tell, all the links to news clippings above are associated with Wright's books, interviews directly with Wright, promotions of her seminars, or all three. SunTunnels (talk) 22:09, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can only find PR items about this person's appointment to various positions. Not meeting notability and lack of sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 11:58, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Created by now-blocked User:Content.Media2023 (Spams / advertising-only account). The only other article this user created is declined Draft:Hassan Ezzeldine, which also needs to be deleted. — Maile (talk) 13:22, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The three Daily Record pieces referenced are all interview-heavy with very little WP:SIGCOV of the subject and my searches do not yield much else. Subject fails WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 02:35, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 18:07, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 18:10, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Lack of independent, reliable sources raises concerns about the subject meeting WP:GNG. Waqar💬 19:51, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but if this person becomes notable, it should be titled as Jess Murphy (footballer) as no other titles with that name and profession exist yet. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 07:58, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination, still not yet notable per WP:CREATIVE. Couldn't find SIGCOV in RS in English or Hindi (इरा टाक) - apart from what's cited here already all I could find was a typical WP:NEWSORGINDIA softball interview on News 18. Wikishovel (talk) 05:26, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:SIGCOV. The article seems to be more promotional. Ciudatul (talk) 10:12, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Poor unreliable sources on the page. Page reads as publicity WP:PROMO. Fails notability with no significant achievement or influence notable by the subject. RangersRus (talk) 14:10, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Agree with others that this is a poorly ref-bombed WP:PROMO. No significant coverage. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:16, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Opening this deletion discussion per WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE on the talk page (here). Would love to hear editors' thoughts going forward. GnocchiFan (talk) 22:36, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I would urge anyone who comments in this discussion to look on the talk page from (one of) the subjects of the article. GnocchiFan (talk) 16:48, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I think that Marziyeh Amirizadeh is too notable to delete. Maryam Rostampour is arguably notable as well, despite the fact that Marziyeh Amirizadeh is the only one of the two with continuing coverage. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:15, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If agreement is that there is enough information to split, I think this is a good idea. Otherwise, I think that Marziyeh Amirizadeh's name be removed from this article per request and this article moved to Maryam Rostamour-Keller per your suggestion. GnocchiFan (talk) 22:00, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Split I think it is reasonable to have this specific article deleted. However, I would be open to the thought of having a separate article for Maryam Rostampour if she is notable enough. Marziyeh Amirizadeh on the surface level appears to be a notable figure (I have not done much research into her life though), so I would be more comfortable with having a separate article for her. ❤HistoryTheorist❤ 18:35, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:NSKATE; medal placement at the junior level do not meet the requirements of WP:NSKATE. PROD removed without explanation. Bgsu98(Talk) 00:59, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There appears to be a professor and a fashion model with this same name that pop up in the search for sources, but I have no idea if those are the same person. I find nothing about a figure skater; this fails notability, Oaktree b (talk) 15:33, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is a classic WP:BLP1E, a human interest story from 2005 that got some brief media attention over a few months and then faded from view. The article has always relied on rumour and forum gossip, which was tidied up to some extent five years ago. However, much of the content, which is critical of those involved, is uncited and likely unverifiable using reliable sources. The page has seen repeated BLP violations - I just deleted an edit from earlier this year that made unsupported personal allegations.
Delete: Initial blast of coverage in 2005-2006, then nothing turns up in my searches. BLP1E does apply. Oaktree b (talk) 21:10, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per BLP1E. Astaire (talk) 21:26, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: clear-cut BLP1E. Rosbif73 (talk) 06:45, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Agree that this is a clear cut case of WP:BLP1E. A cursory search didn't come up with any sustained coverage. Let'srun (talk) 21:52, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOLY has changed since last AfD, inherent notability is only granted to medal winners. This article fails WP:SPORTSCRIT. Australia only played in the Olympics as a host nation and lost every game. Only primary sources provided. LibStar (talk) 18:27, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sports biographies are subject to a heightened sourcing standard. See WP:SPORTBASIC prong 5: "Sports biographies must include at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject, excluding database sources." This one-sentence stub does not meet the standard. Cbl62 (talk) 16:08, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Even gold medalists are not afforded inherent notability; as Cbl62 says, all sportsperson biographies must cite a source of SIGCOV in addition to the subject meeting GNG. A search through newspaper archives and ProQuest only turned up brief mentions in the context of the 2000 Games, a short local interview with her son some years later about his cancer, and an article that at first seemed promising but ended up only having a few of sentences actually on Bjarnason and included a high percentage of unencyclopedic details (like her husband and son being in the stands). JoelleJay (talk) 02:19, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Unable to find any WP:SIGCOV for this subject to meet the WP:GNG. The only sources are primary, and multiple searches didn't come up with much better. Let'srun (talk) 22:04, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This article about a Brazilian singer covers the subject's early career as a child / teenage performer but not the later appearance as a contestant on The Voice Brasil, performing by then as Lais Yasmin. Although this article instance is sourced only to primary social media, its basic details are verifiableinthis 2018 online article associated with The Voice appearance. However I don't see the evidence needed to meet the WP:MUSICBIO notability criteria. AllyD (talk) 09:30, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This article fails the WP:GNG and WP:NOTEWORTHY guidelines for WP:BLP because she is a local official who has not received significant coverage beyond what is expected for a local elected official. In addition, this article has in the past been suspected of WP:COI editing and no changes or improvements to the article have been made since the COI tag was placed on the article. Go4thProsper (talk) 21:47, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Discussion page was created without the {{afd2}} template, was not transcluded to a daily log, and created under an incorrect title. @Go4thProsper: For future nominations, please fully follow the instructions at WP:AFDHOWTO. As for my own view, the subject appears to clearly fail WP:NPOL, but I haven’t researched enough yet for a more formal !vote. --Finngalltalk 23:42, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable local official. Sources cited are all routine coverage except for the NYT article, which mentions her exactly once. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 20:03, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. and BottleOfChocolateMilk. Fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. Sal2100 (talk) 16:12, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Unable to find the requisite WP:SIGCOV for this BLP to meet the WP:GNG. Let'srun (talk) 21:44, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No evidence of notability for this footballer. The only sources are a pair of interviews with some routine coverage interspersed, as well as the BBC piece with two sentences of independent coverage. My searches did not yield much else. JTtheOG (talk) 02:41, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 17:58, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 17:59, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:NSKATE; medal placement at the junior level or bronze/silver medals at the national championships do not meet the requirements of WP:NSKATE. Google search turns up nothing outside of wikis and scoring databases. Previous AFD received zero arguments in favor of keeping this article that cited any evidence of notability. Bgsu98(Talk) 02:18, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:NSKATE; medal placement at the junior level or bronze/silver medals at the national championships do not meet the requirements of WP:NSKATE. Google search turns up nothing outside of wikis and scoring databases. Previous AFD received zero arguments in favor of keeping this article that cited any evidence of notability. Bgsu98(Talk) 02:11, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: For the same reasons as the last AfD. This subject lacks the WP:SIGCOV from reliable, independent sources to meet the WP:GNG. Let'srun (talk) 13:30, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:NACTORorWP:GNG. There’s in short, no piece that is independent of the subject to establish notability. BEFORE does not provide anything different. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 17:32, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List_of_Nigerian_actors#Actresses: she has some credits in films and coverage, although including a lot of interviews (but a lot, and in various media), allow to verify she's a Nigerian actress who might have a certain notoriety. Hence this WP:ATD -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 19:37, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
-->Changing to Keep per WP:HEY thanks to the work of User:Ahola .O since nomination, including sources showing a certain notability as comedian.
Delete Limited coverage, no evidence she meets the guidelines. Not in favour of redirection, per WP:LISTPURP and no point redirecting to a page where she isn't mentioned. Mdann52 (talk) 18:26, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep From my search, subject seems notable and has significant coverage. She has featured in some films and has some level of notability in comedy. I made some improvements on the page as well. I hope it helps Mevoelo (talk) 20:16, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: I agree with moving the article about Calabar Chic to the List of Nigerian Actresses, which is a more general page. Due to a lack of coverage, the article doesn't meet WP:NACTORorWP:GNG guidelines. Redirecting will put her mentions in the right place. It will keep helpful content while following Wikipedia's guidelines. It also links the subject to a relevant, broader topic.--AstridMitch (talk) 05:18, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I also agree to keep the page because she meets WP:NACTOR guidelines, she has roles in notable films, television shows, stage performances, and other productions, some are listed on the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahola .O (talk • contribs) 06:47, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was not going to reply specifically to anyone in this discussion, but I have to now since I think you’re misinterpreting NACTOR. One thing is for the films they starred in to be notable, another thing is for their roles in the films to be significant. This is not the case here even in the tiniest bit. Her roles in these films was a significant role, she clearly doesn’t pass the guideline. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 08:37, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DoczillaOhhhhhh, no! 05:32, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Aside from some interviews and passing mentions, there is not enough to fulfill WP:GNG. As she only had minor roles, WP:NACTOR is not fulfilled either. A redirect to List of Nigerian actors#Actresses as mentioned above is not feasible per WP:LISTPEOPLE. Non-notable subjects should not be included in lists of people. Hence my recommendation to Delete, perhaps just a case of WP:TOOSOON. Broc (talk) 08:10, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not meet WP:NGYMNAST criteria and fails WP:NSPORTS without independent coverage. Sources in article are limited to competition results and a profile in her alma mater's publication (thus non-independent). Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:31, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:21, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's not much significant coverage of Fleur Revell published in multiple secondary and reliable sources. None of the conditions outlined in the notability guideline for creative professionals apply in her case. There are many articles that mention her in the context of her affair but it isn't significant coverage. She has supposedly won 3 Qantas awards yet there is no evidence of that online and the claim is unreferenced. There might be proof in print and not online since she probably received them in the 90's. If that cannot be proved, there is not much to base her notability on. Certainly not the affair. Ynsfial (talk) 08:07, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Independent reliable sources with significant coverage exist but they are largely off-line publications from 1990s. I have added several such off-line citations.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 02:07, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep You don’t win three Qantas Media Awards without getting some attention. That happened at a time for which we have few online sources, though. Schwede66 19:12, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, some of the sourcing amounts to OR. Interviews don't establish notability. Only source that can establish notability is this article: https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/no-idea-what-next-for-fleur/NHVADVZ4KX5NZRLJFUHGB3PUBA/ The rest of the sources being not about her, interviews, or non-independent PR releases, and I fail to see GNG being met. I'd even argue the Qantas Media Awards fail GNG too, don't really see any independent coverage of that either. Traumnovelle (talk) 00:00, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there is some relatively negative reporting around her relationship with Paul Holmes in a couple of national newspapers and her departure from New Idea is also covered. I think more work needs to be done researching her and agree with Swede's view that her attaining three Qantas Media awards, in itsself, is sufficient to meet notability. I accept that a reference to properly establish this is necessary but that will take some time and research as the papers of the time are not online. NealeWellington (talk) 22:13, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:22, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify: I agree that this article should be draftified. More coverage needs to be sourced from independent, reliable sources to meet the WP:GNG requirements. AstridMitch (talk) 4:40, 19 June 2024
Delete – All coverage to my eye is either not independent of the subject, or is a WP:TRIVIAL mention. Fails GNG on this basis. My search was unable to turn up sources to prove notability, however they may exist in non-English languages. I am not opposed to incubating should there exist interest in improving the article in that namespace and demonstrating notability either via GNG or WP:NATHLETE. Bgv. (talk) 04:50, 19 June 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) 02:54, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find evidence of notability, the only indepth source is this, published by Scouting.nl, i.e. the organisation she worked for (not an independent source). The other sources are primary sources or passing mentions. Fram (talk) 08:40, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into section of Vereeniging Nederlandsch Indische Padvinders, removing biographical info, keeping the scouting CV, POW information. The content is notable, even if the author is not notable enough. -Bogger (talk) 10:46, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are sufficient details here to merit keeping the article. --evrik(talk) 13:36, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's not a policy based reason to keep or delete articles. Which sources are independent and indepth? Fram (talk) 13:43, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Well referenced figure, historically notable. –DMartin 02:15, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Subject is notable and reliably sourced. WC gudang inspirasi (Read!Talk!) 14:32, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: My vote is obviously to keep it; I wrote the article as I deemed it historically significant and notable. Cflam01 (talk) 14:51, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It would be nice if anyone would actually address the nomination, and indicate which sources are (as required) independent of the subject and giving indepth coverage. The only indepth coverage I see is from a Dutch scouting site, so not independent (an organisation writing about aspects of its own history). Fram (talk) 15:03, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a clear WP:GNG failure. Without any sources that support notability, it is unclear if and how much content should be moved to Vereeniging Nederlandsch Indische Padvinders (correctly identified as a potential target by Bogger). So a BIG NO to merge. Redirect isn't right either, as Bolhuis-Schilstra was not organically included in the body of the target (only as possible other reading). Hence this should default to delete. Thanks to Fram for nominating. By no means the first time we see excessive Dutch scouting biographies. gidonb (talk) 19:00, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: the keep !votes above are extremely weak and should obviously be dismissed by the closer, while a quick look at the "well referenced" article shows a distinct lack of WP:SIGCOV at all. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:36, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per AirshipJungleman29's comments directly above.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 14:05, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I thank you all for your efforts to maintain and improve Wikipedia. While I understand that concerns regarding WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV are certainly valid in this case, I'd like to make a proposition here that Bolhuis-Schilstra's story may be an important piece of historical information that sheds light on some of the humanitarian efforts during WWII. Her work as a scout leader in helping the sick is a testament to the resilience and compassion of humanity during a time of great turmoil, which I believe should be preserved and made known regardless of current notability and coverage. As for the "excessive Dutch scouting biographies", each of these articles provides unique insights into their contributions and experiences, showcasing the diverse stories and achievements within the scouting movement from WWII which again should be preserved in my opinion. Furthermore, WP:IAR exists to guide us towards maintaining and improving our content on Wikipedia, so in this case, ignoring concerns about notability and coverage would help us preserve and further document this piece of history that provides valuable insights into such an important historical period. While I can't stop you from voting for deletion, I kindly urge the closer to consider these points. Cflam01 (talk) 21:05, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While I am not voting on this nomination, I would like to point out that notability is a policy and we generally do not give IAR exemptions to articles when it comes to the notability guidelines. If there is a desire to share her story if Wikipedia is not suitable, alternative outlets exist. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:32, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the clarification. It's just that Java camp experiences are extremely uncovered and that articles like this on Wikipedia help bring such stories to the light. I just think this kind of information should be known and not gatekept. I'll go seek alternative outlets if this AfD is a delete, I get it. Cflam01 (talk) 08:24, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Searched Google books and found nothing. Sources presented in the article doesn't pass WP:GNG. Twinkle1990 (talk) 15:24, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is important story and I think it should be kept. The Scouting movement is very large so many scouting references are independent of the author or the topic. It does need more sources however, Bduke (talk) 04:56, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:SPORTSCRIT and WP:NOLY. A search in Google news only found equestrian related sources which are not third party. LibStar (talk) 18:20, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: A few articles about her [5], here [6] and an interview with background info here [7]. Not a slam dunk, but more info than we typically see for Olympians here. Oaktree b (talk) 20:04, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The sources from Oaktree b seem to meet the WP:GNG. Let'srun (talk) 14:31, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen×☎ 21:34, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Only reliable and accessible sourcing I could find by Google search was this link, which alone does not seem sufficient. Her name is apparently not even spelled correctly! Tkaras1 (talk) 02:06, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 03:11, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article needs a significant update, Ursula it seems that he died in 2011, but even an update I don't think will be able to keep the article.--Mooon FR (talk) 20:54, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I reviewed tis article thrice to determine whether it is considered worthy of a Wikipedia entry. Firstly, I saw there were good sources as though a reviewer will do. I now checked the sources and almost a good percentage weren't reliable per WP:RS. Religion of sources and lack of WP:SIRS definitely defined this type of article.
In second checking for confirmation, I discovered so many sources lined her perhaps a single line other quote while addressing her as a worker at Penal. I would have said this should be redirected to the organisation page but didn't see any advocacy worthy enough for WP:ATD. Another subtle was drive by the award nomination. This cannot be called WP:ANYBIO since it was once nominated and wasn't won (it's is also a lesser award, thus not major like ANYBIO. I've therefore brought this to the table proper discussion. Safari ScribeEdits!Talk! 19:52, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The award from the EU seems notable [8] and [9]. I'm ok with the sources given. At least enough for BASIC Oaktree b (talk) 21:08, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Oaktree b, EU human rights award is nothing but a less major award. Though must have come from a notable form EU, but the article bearer was a nominee and was only once. How does that satisfy WP:BASIC?Safari ScribeEdits!Talk! 21:58, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@User:Oaktree b, the sources you listed all were independent of the Ugandan academic Spire or nearer to that. However, one nominated award is never enough for a career that isn't established. For example, a writer that has written extensively and appeared in reaserch paper may be considered even with the writing and more when nominated for an award like this. In this context, however, the article doesn't meet GNG of her career or any significant impact or SIGCOV of her advocacy ad work. Arguing about an award that is not even won is likely biased for me. It's simply a reminder! Safari ScribeEdits!Talk! 23:37, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: A review of newly found sources would be helpful. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 21:44, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:NSKATE; medal placement at the junior level or bronze/silver medals at the national championships do not meet the requirements of WP:NSKATE. Google search turns up nothing outside of wikis and scoring databases. Previous AFD received zero arguments in favor of keeping this article that cited any evidence of notability. Bgsu98(Talk) 15:30, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Some limited coverage here, here, and here, which I think is evidence of further offline coverage. JTtheOG (talk) 22:20, 8 June 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, LizRead!Talk! 22:22, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 22:48, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:NSKATE; medal placement at the junior level or bronze/silver medals at the national championships do not meet the requirements of WP:NSKATE. Google search turns up nothing outside of wikis and scoring databases. Previous AFD received zero arguments in favor of keeping this article that cited any evidence of notability. Bgsu98(Talk) 15:29, 8 June 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, LizRead!Talk! 22:23, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 22:47, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:NSKATE; medal placement at the junior level or bronze/silver medals at the national championships do not meet the requirements of WP:NSKATE. Google search turns up nothing outside of wikis and scoring databases. Previous AFD received zero arguments in favor of keeping this article that cited any evidence of notability. Bgsu98(Talk) 15:26, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 21:15, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 22:52, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: With zero citations, article violates WP:OR. Also seems to be a WP:STUB, despite being 16 years old. —Mjks28 (talk) 08:14, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I can't find any sigcov. David Palmer//cloventt(talk) 07:55, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Week keep Some sources to indicate notability, but only just. Mn1548 (talk) 16:59, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Has played at the highest level, having represented New Zealand including at a World Cup. Paora (talk) 12:50, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Paora: Participation-based criteria for athletes were deprecated in 2022. BLPs require strong sourcing. JTtheOG (talk) 17:44, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: It would be helpful to identify which sources establish notability, by current Wikipedia standards, rather than just making a claim. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 02:12, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DoczillaOhhhhhh, no! 03:07, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable businesswoman and "philanthropist." Sources do not support notability under WP:GNGorWP:NBIO. Most references are WP:PRIMARYSOURCES and WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS or they fail verification. The only examples of WP:SIGCOV are problematic and unreliable. Mkazi (the website is inactive) was a lifestyle blog with no named editors or legitimate editorial process. The Parents Africa profile is really a WP:INTERVIEW, and it makes major errors (for example, stating that she left a highly-paid corporate job in a year when she would have been 20). Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:38, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I have reorganized the article and added some news articles sources from Gale. The top two references are here:[1][2] The Mkazi article mentioned above also provides biographical details. I updated the citation for the Mkazi article, and other inactive URLs, to use archived URLs. DaffodilOcean (talk) 12:30, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
References
^Munde, Claire (October 22, 2016). "I blend my charity work with personal growth". The Star (Nairobi, Kenya) – via Gale.
^"No husband no dignity? Group helps widows rebuild their lives". The Star (Nairobi, Kenya). July 15, 2017 – via Gale.
Can you provide some details on what the second Star source you cited says since there appears to be no online version? Thanks! The first one (link here) is a WP:INTERVIEW and thus would not qualify for notability. As for the Mkazi piece, it was a lifestyle blog with no named editors or legitimate editorial process and thus cannot be a reliable source for purposes of notability. Dclemens1971 (talk) 12:44, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The second article is 1300 words on the charity founded by Wanjau. Also, I would argue that the first source I provided includes expansion of the conversation with Wanjau, and thus showing 'depth of preparation' that would be needed to establish notability as is quoted in the essay you linked. DaffodilOcean (talk) 13:26, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
1300 words on Wanjau or on her charity? Re: the Star interview, every other paragraph is a quote from Wanjau. There are no quotes from other interviewees, and she appears to be the sole source relied upon by the interviewer, which shows the opposite of "depth of preparation." Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:34, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article you cannot access is about her charity and biographical details on her. I stand by my statements that the citations I provide were more than interviews; the Mkazi piece and the lengthy editorial from Parents Africa are also more than interviews. At this point I leave it to other people to comment. DaffodilOcean (talk) 23:10, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 21:39, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DoczillaOhhhhhh, no! 21:55, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. You may be able to access Gale databases through your local public library. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:02, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Sources 4, 8, 9, 20 and 24 are all RS that talks about her, the article seems to meet notability. Oaktree b (talk) 11:48, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Source #4 is her brother talking, and the subject is only namedropped. Source #8 interviews her, and almost entirely consists of quotes from the subject. Source #9 ... inquirer.net is a reliable source, but that's a scanty article consisting of five sentences aside from quotes from the subject, and that barely scrapes by if at all. #20 looks like a good source. #24 is scanty routine sports coverage. I'm not digging deeper one way or another, but they're weak reeds to hang a keep. Ravenswing 02:52, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comments She has never met WP:NMMA. The first source mentioned above is an article about her brother, she is mentioned in passing because she was on the same fight card. The next three are pre-fight articles about her first match in the promotion's Grand Prix tournament (which would be typical coverage for any fighter). The final reference is a report on that fight, which she lost. Even if you believe that coverage is significant, it is all about one event. Didn't check other references, so I'm not voting yet. Papaursa (talk) 13:38, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: In addition to the sources already in the article, there is [[14]] and [[15]]. Not sure if it is enough to meet the notability guidelines though. Let'srun (talk) 14:37, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The subject does not meet criteria for WP:MMA. Passing mentions, quotes, interviews, event announcement and results are not sufficient to meet WP:GNG.Lekkha Moun (talk) 16:54, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, StarMississippi 01:11, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:NMMA with sources mentioned by Oaktree and Let's run. They're reliable and in-depth enough IMV. SBKSPP (talk) 00:17, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How can you say she meets WP:NMMA? Have you even read the guidelines? Subject needs to be ranked top 10 in the world not a single promotion. She is not in the Top 10 (or even in contenders) according to Sherdog rankings [16] and according to Tapology she is #58 in the world. [17]. She does not meet WP:NMMA at all. Lekkha Moun (talk) 05:05, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Still no consensus. I don't understand how very experienced editors can vary so widely on how they evaluate sources and their reliability. But it happens every day in AFDLand. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 01:12, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: She gets a fair bit of coverage in Filipino media [18], [19], [20], during and after matches. This suggests notability. I might call this a weak keep, but I think we have enough. Oaktree b (talk) 12:09, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete: She quite clearly does not meet WP:NMMA, and as for WP:GNG, there are a few reliable sources, but not enough content is from them to justify notability, and too much comes from name drops/non-independent sources. — Alien333 (what I did & why I did it wrong) 17:12, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's clear she doesn't meet WP:NMMAorWP:ANYBIO, so the question boils down to meeting WP:GNG. I commented earlier on the existing references at the time. Since then user Let'srun added two sources from the week preceding her last fight--the first is that she's training with her fiance and the second is standard prefight coverage about her bout with a completely unranked (by fightmatrix) fighter who took the fight on two weeks notice. The three sources mentioned by Oaktree_b are another pre-fight article on the same fight, that fight's result report, and that the currently injured One promotion champion is willing to fight her "dearest friend" for her title when she recovers from injury (which all sounds promotional and not-independent to me, especially given she's already got a fight scheduled for September). I see lots of coverage in terms of number of articles, but everything seems to be typical coverage that any pro MMA fighter would have. She is currently ranked 41st in the world and has never beaten a top 25 fighter, so there's nothing to distinguish her from other aspiring fighters. She's had 5 fights (3 wins, 2 losses) since the article was previously deleted so it doesn't appear that much has changed. She may become notable, but my crystal ball simply isn't that good. Papaursa (talk) 11:13, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I concur with the analysis from Papaursa, this subject may become notable in the future but doesn't meet the WP:GNG today. Let'srun (talk) 21:37, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Biathlete who placed lowly in two Olympic Games. No World Cup results of note either; 49th and 68th places tend not to get coverage. I did not find any coverage when searchnig either, apart from passing mentions (and I did search in the Hungarian name order. Therefore fails WP:SPORTCRIT. Geschichte (talk) 21:01, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Paywalled newspaper archive Arcanum brings up ~300 matches for this person's name. @Nenea hartia: Can you verify if any of the coverage is significant? Thanks, BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:42, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@BeanieFan11: As you already mentioned, there are many references to her, most of them about the competitions she participated in. However, I also found some slightly more detailed articles, one of them in the "Yearbook of the Hungarian Olympic Academy 2016". Please see here. --Nenea hartia (talk) 19:07, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Nenea hartia: Thanks. Do you know if the "Yearbook of the Hungarian Olympic Academy" is independent of Holéczy? BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:07, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@BeanieFan11: Yes, it is an official annual publication of the Hungarian Olympic Committee. It is a very comprehensive work, with many pages (Holéczy is mentioned on page 214), and in the same link above I added the first pages, which include the editorial board and the publishing house. --Nenea hartia (talk) 20:27, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If it has been published by the Olympic Committee it is primary, if it has been published by an unrelated publishing house it is secondary. More importantly: is it significant or a passing mention? (Same with the 300 hits. Many of them would be mentions) Geschichte (talk) 08:32, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say it is significant coverage (~175 words focusing on Holeczy) – as for the publisher, looking at the first page and using Google Translate I get:
Edited and proofread by Dr. Pál Hencsei and Vilmos Horváth
Photos: Hungarian Olympic Committee
Hungarian Olympic Academy
Hungarian Olympic and Sports Museum
Judit Bódayné Blaha, József Erdélyi
István Fucskó, JochaPress, Tamás Róth
Domonkos Vígh and the authors
ISSN 0238-0412
Publisher: Hungarian Olympic Committee
Responsible for the publication: Zsolt Borkai, MOB president
Printing house: Pátria Nyomda Zrt., responsible manager: Katalin Orgován
Printing preparation: János Kerényi
@Nenea hartia: It looks like it was published by the Olympic committee? Or is this a mistranslation? BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:42, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@BeanieFan11:: Unfortunately I don't speak Hungarian and I am not familiar with sports organizations in Hungary, but as far as I can tell, yes, it was published by the Hungarian Olympic Committee. Also, the Hungarian Olympic Academy (Magyar Olimpiai Akadémia) seems to be a structure within the Hungarian Olympic Committee (Magyar Olimpiai Bizottság = MOB). --Nenea hartia (talk) 18:50, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 22:54, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 13:50, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. LizRead!Talk! 05:01, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This subject fails WP:GNG because only insubstantial coverage is indicated in articles that are all topically about her spouse, or published by her own school. She fails WP:GNG today and is unlikely to garner more substantial coverage in the future due to her being so dead. JFHJr (㊟) 05:11, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I have added in reviews of two of her publications. She wrote under the name Elizabeth Young, which makes searching for discussions of her work a challenge. I suspect there is more coverage of her work, but it requires sifting through articles about similar people. DaffodilOcean (talk) 21:41, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I find reviews for multiple books. I also added back some of the text that had been removed prior to the AFD nomination. While this text needs citations (and is now marked as such), it is useful to know in order to find the sources needed. DaffodilOcean (talk) 12:10, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 07:33, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DoczillaOhhhhhh, no! 06:00, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
keep as meeting WP:BASIC. This is not an easy pass -- her books have a relatively low citation count but she has had an impact. Old London Churches seems to have been regarded as a significant work and has been cited quite a bit in the context of for conservation efforts received a number of reviews which are not available online. She got obituaries in the Independent and Telegraph which I think counts for a lot. Here are the sources I think taken together are sufficient:
minimal discussion about her in her husband's biography [24]
this obituary, albeit in a low-circulation paper[25]
this entry showing that her papers are now held under supervision of the UK national archives[26]
One note: immediately prior to bringing this AfD the nominator removed more than 4K of text from the article including removing her extensive biography. I'm not sure how that is justified - surely if the books exist they are sources, although whether they count for notability may be another matter. I wholly agree with @DaffodilOcean's decision to reinstate them, and to identify additional cites. Oblivy (talk) 01:22, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:
