Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/Today
Read how to nominate an article for deletion.
![]() |
- Vincenzo Soprano (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)
Nomination: Notability. Nothing links here. There is no Italian page. He's not even mentioned on the page for Trenitalia. It also doesn't appear that he's still the CEO. It's not clear that this subject warrants an English Wikipedia page. Suggest a Wikidata page should be sufficient for the material currently on the page. ash (talk) 04:44, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
- Stage School Australia (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 vast majority in unsourced or primary sourced, so I intended to improve the article but very much struggled to find good secondary sources. The school does not seem to fit notability guidelines. -- NotCharizard 🗨 02:59, 12 April 2025 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Theatre, Companies, Schools, and Australia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:29, 12 April 2025 (UTC)
- Delete – The article lacks strong independent sources and relies mostly on primary or promotional content. Doesn’t meet WP:GNG or WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. Without significant secondary coverage, notability isn’t established. Pridemanty (talk) 06:32, 12 April 2025 (UTC)
- Delete. There is not a single independent source cited in the article, which appears to be entirely promotional. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:47, 12 April 2025 (UTC)
- Comment I am not finding much through online searches. Interestingly, there was an Australian Youth Theatre in the 1940s in Sydney. I think it may be necessary to look in books and journals that aren't online for more info on the various branches and names of this organisation. RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:33, 18 April 2025 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, I closed this as a Delete but a trusted editor requested that I relist so I'm accommodating that request. Please consider their additions.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:56, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
- Keep per WP:GNG and WP:ORG. I'm still in the middle of expanding and editing the article and will return to this discussion. Cielquiparle (talk) 03:57, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
- Jack Coleman (soccer) (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)
Coleman played three games of professional soccer for a team in the second tier of the American soccer pyramid, does not appeared to have played professionally after that point. Appears to fail WP:NSPORT and WP:SIGCOV. Raskuly (talk) 03:16, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Oklahoma. Raskuly (talk) 03:16, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:02, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
- Preetha Ram (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 independent, secondary sources found about the subject. The article was previously PROD'd and contested back in 2009, so it seems that an AfD is the only course of action available here. WormEater13 (talk • contribs) 02:10, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, Businesspeople, and Women. WormEater13 (talk • contribs) 02:10, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
- Susan (drag queen) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Does not meet notability criteria. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 00:00, 5 April 2025 (UTC)
- Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 April 5. —cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online 00:19, 5 April 2025 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Belgium. Shellwood (talk) 00:31, 5 April 2025 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:36, 5 April 2025 (UTC)
- Delete – Per nom. No notability demonstrated in the present sources. Svartner (talk) 08:59, 7 April 2025 (UTC)
Comment: Arguably passes WP:CREATIVE because of an international tour. Bearian (talk) 14:52, 7 April 2025 (UTC)
- Which part of WP:CREATIVE? ꧁Zanahary꧂ 16:15, 7 April 2025 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:12, 12 April 2025 (UTC)
- Sorry, it should be WP:SINGER, criteria 4. Bearian (talk) 04:09, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
- I don't believe this person is a musician, which is the category that that SNG pertains to. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 04:23, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
- Sorry, it should be WP:SINGER, criteria 4. Bearian (talk) 04:09, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
- Keep per ENTERTAINER. ---Another Believer (Talk) 14:25, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
- For the record, I don’t believe this person meets ENT, because the two credits they have are to a franchise of RuPaul’s Drag Race and a reunion for that season. The season reunion was just produced and streamed under the name “Bring Back My Girls”, which is an online-only collection of reunions for Drag Race franchises. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 15:01, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. User:Bearian are you arguing for a Keep here? It would be helpful to get a source analysis.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:55, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
- I'm not sure if PinkNews is a reliable source, and it's the only source for evidence of a "world tour". That's why I'm hesitant about keeping this. Bearian (talk) 01:37, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
- Smruthi K (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 Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria:
If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability.
Anybody who checks the first two links, they are YouTube interviews from sources that are listed unreliable at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Film/Indian_cinema_task_force#Guidelines_on_sources (both Indiaglitz and Behindwoods). The third source is a just a short film link.
Also, she is very low-key, dubbing for films in not the original language such as K.G.F 2 (non Kannada/Hindi version) and Petta (non Tamil version). She only seems to dub in Tamil original versions for Raashii Khanna.
A quick WP:BEFORE yields nothing. DareshMohan (talk) 01:04, 12 April 2025 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, and Tamil Nadu. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:14, 12 April 2025 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:53, 19 April 2025 (UTC)- Delete - per nom. The subject of this article is not notable, so it doesn't seem like this article can be improved in any way.
- WormEater13 (talk • contribs) 02:14, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
- Sahar Hashmi (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)
Back at AfD after the first resulted in speedy deletion. Back in the mainspace and while I attempted to clean up (even moved to draft to allow for cleanup but that was objected to) but there is nothing useful to create the page. For NACTOR, a person is not inherently notable for two lead roles - they still need the significant coverage showing such. Here, the references are unreliable, some based on the publication and the rest based on being non-bylined churnalism. CNMall41 (talk) 00:41, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Pakistan. CNMall41 (talk) 00:43, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
- Keep: 2 lead (ergo significant) roles in notable series, Zulm and Mann Mast Malang, thus meeting WP:NACTOR that states that actors "may be considered notable if" they had significant roles in notable productions. To pass WP:NACTOR, coverage is only needed to verify the importance of the roles in the notable productions. No notability guideline warrants "inherent notability" on WP: all of them, including WP:GNG mention a "presumption" of notability of some sort (presumed/may/likely, etc). See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ali Raza (actor), an AfD that I link here not for its outcome nor potential disagreements between given users but because it contains an extensive discussion about WP:NACTOR and WP:SNGs in general. In a nutshell: stating that subjects meeting any of the specific notability guidelines about notability "must first" (or "should also") meet GNG is an erroneous (albeit common) interpretation of what the guideline says. Meeting given specific requirements for notability can be considered sufficient, per consensus; that is why such guidelines exist; when the requirements of the applicable guideline are met, it can be agreed upon that the article may be retained. By the same token, those who don’t agree are obviously free to express their views but meeting specific requirements can be considered a good and sufficient reason to retain any page; in other words, in such cases, subjects don't need to also meet the general requirements. Even meeting them does not guarantee "inherently" an article, anyway.-Mushy Yank. 01:18, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Dance, and Television. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:03, 19 April 2025 (UTC)