Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/Today

Purge
Shortcut WP:AFD/T

19 April 2025

Read how to nominate an article for deletion.

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< April 18	April 20 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

April Hutchinson

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

Does not meet WP:NATHLETE, and the page is almost entirely comprised by primary sources not independent of the subject for statements of fact, primary sources of non notable sporting events, low quality unreliable blogs such as Reduxx, and generally unreliable or outright unreliable news sources such as Fox News, Rebel News, and New York Post on issues related to GENSEX to the point where once those sources are excised the subject does not meet any form of notability even as an Anti-Trans activist. Page was accepted after a series of failed reviews despite no edits between the last review pointing out the problems with the page and the acceptance by a separate reviewer, which may explain some of these problems. Relm (talk) 00:35, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

:Draftify or Delete I believe this article was not ready to come out of draft space, and the editor who worked on it had not responded to the critique of the previous submission or touched Wikipedia since. I think the issues with the page are substantial enough to consider outright deletion, but sending it back to draft space for the original author - should they return to the project - to continue to get used to WP:RSP may be sufficient. Relm (talk) 00:46, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is false.

Here are the current citations and sports accomplishments that are notable:

North American Powerlifting Federation

Megyn Kelly Show

Open Powerlifting

Alberta Assembly

CBC News

New York Post

NBC 15 News

London Free Press (2)

Fox News (2)

Newsweek

Outkick (2)

CTV News

Sports achievements:

North American Regional Powerlifting Championships

Gold medal – first place 2022 Panama Masters 1

Silver medal – second place 2022 Cayman Islands Masters 1

Nationals

Silver medal – second place 2022 Newfoundland Masters 1

Gold medal – first place 2023 British Columbia Masters 1

Central Canadian Powerlifting and Bench Press Championships

Gold medal – first place 2021 Ontario Masters 1

Ontario Provincials

Gold medal – first place 2022 Ontario Open

OPA Masters and Open Provincial Powerlifting Championship

Gold medal – first place 2023 Ontario Masters 1

Reduxx has one single article.

This request is not accurate. QcAmbitious (talk) 12:30, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Crossposting from the talk page[1]

Please familiarize yourself with WP:NOTABILITY, WP:NATHLETE, WP:RELIABLE, WP:PRIMARY/WP:SECONDARY, WP:INDEPENDENT, and WP:DUE.

A source existing does not make the source notable, nor does it make it reliable. Wikipedia prioritizes reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject.

This page is primarily built on primary sources not independent of the author, or which do not provide any semblance of notability such as the direct links to event placements and her personal details. Primary sources are okay in some circumstances, but in this case all that would be left in early life is a link to her own page cited to a claim that she was born in Ontario. Career beginnings section is exclusively cited to primary sources. So far there is nothing to suggest this person is notable as an athlete, just that their athletic profile exists. If someone made a page for me and cited my USChess profile, that would not make me notable as a chess player - what would is if reliable secondary sources discuss my play.

The 'women's rights advocate' claim is sourced to a Megyn Kelly appearance. Megyn Kelly's show - and syndicated television news generally speaking - is not a reliable source.

The activism section is sourced to a vimeo video by the subject, rebel news (not a reliable source [2]), a link to assembly minutes (Primary source); and then a citelist of a podcast, two WP:UNDUE blogposts, and a link to a primary source from an anti trans advocacy group.

So now we get to the Controversy section.

Hutchinson gained attention after being removed from the "Resilient London: Meet Your Neighbours" exhibit at Museum London, Ontario, due to her comments on transgender athletes.

This claim is cited to 7 sources. CBC News (mostly reliable with the caveat that it's state funded), Reduxx (a hate blog), another blog, the New York Post (Unreliable per WP:NYPOST), a local affiliate of NBC which does not actually contribute to the claim but rather is just a primary source for the comments themselves, London Free Press (A local newspaper), GB news (unreliable, and would be deprecated if it was cited more [3]), and Fox news (unreliable WP:FOXNEWS).

We then have an accidental double cite of the same CBC news article, Newsweek (used to be reliable, but now isn't WP:NEWSWEEK), True North (definitely an unreliable news source and I'm happy to take that to WP:RSN if you want confirmation). We then have Fox News again, Daily Citizen (an anti LGBT advocacy group, not a news source), true north again, and then Fox News a third time. Next is a triplet of sources, the first to a blogpost, the second to Sportskeeda - which I have never heard of but I will assume for the benefit of the doubt that it is fine, and Outkick (which is under FOX News). Outkick again, and the earlier local newspaper from her home town.

The personal life snippet about alcoholism is sourced to Gamesday London (sports section of the earlier local paper) and CTV which is fine.

So after all of that, we are left with:

A single CBC article and potentially a Sportskeeda article covering her comments and the aftermath, and the CTV article about her alcoholism.

That's 2, possibly 3, reliable secondary sources at best to provide notability. This is a local interest story picked up by anti trans advocates, but she is not even notable for that relative to other figures like Riley Gaines. This person does not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines, and Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS. Relm (talk) 13:30, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

FYI Sportskeeda is considered unreliable. JoelleJay (talk) 17:56, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Relm (talk) 01:23, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Sport of athletics, and Canada. Shellwood (talk) 01:15, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as there is WP:SIGCOV in independent reliable sources about the subject speaking out about trans women participating in powerlifting, e.g. The London Free Press, CBC News, a local NBC news affiliate, The Montreal Gazette (November 2023) and The Windsor Star (June 2024). There are also two articles before this time in 2022 about the subject's path to powerlifting in The London Free Press and CTV News. I can understand how these could be missed given the multiple non-independent, non-Wikipedia notable references in the article. Nonetheless, the article appears to meet WP:BASIC. Not sure if article meets WP:NATH as there is no Wikipedia policy guidance on this; the subject has placed 1st five times and 2nd two times in competitions. Note that this article cleared the WP:AFC process last month. Nnev66 (talk) 17:32, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
These were not missed and were discussed in my above post save the Montreal Gazette and Windsor Star (not in the article to my knowledge). The issue is that of the sources which are left with the exception of CTV News and CBC News, these are all local papers - and they're all covering the same two local interest stories about this person. There is a paucity of reliable sources above the local level, and what they cover does not seem to make this individual notable as an athlete or as an activist. In regards to the AFC, the article was declined three times, and the last one in January - the page received no edits between being declined for serious issues and being accepted by a different reviewer last month. Relm (talk) 18:23, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - RelmC, this is a lot to read here. But before I spend too much time reviewing all these sources: you appear to have struck your draftify/delete. You don't say why. Was this because it is assumed as nom.? Or did you strike because you are withdrawing the nomination? Thanks. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:42, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My vote was striked by Nfitz who - correctly as I understand it - striked my vote as the one who nominates is presumed to be voting to delete. Hope this clarifies. Relm (talk) 12:13, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, yes, thanks. It is correct that the nom. vote is assumed, but I wasn't clear on that being the reason. Now I am. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 13:51, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep although I would almost be happier with draftify, based on some concerns about the way the page is presented. If we keep it I would support removing the activism and controversy sections altogether in favour of a couple of sentences in the career section limited to the most salient details unless and until secondary sources are written about that issue. But it is a keep because we appear to be over the threshold for WP:BASIC/WP:GNG. But only just, in fact. Sources must be secondary, and I don't think the trans women participation reports qualify. Now, we could get into long discussions about that, but let's be clear: the question of what is primary or secondary in a source depends on the question being asked of it. A source such as this one [4], mentioned above, is primary for the matter of report (that a trans athlete saw a backlash) but secondary in any background given about Hutchinson. But it doesn't give us any significant background. The statements made by Hutchinson are primary reporting regarding the matter that is the occasion of the article. To put that another way, what can we say about Hutchinson from that and similar articles? We are writing a biography, and if the only thing the source adds is that she said something relating to the matter of the trans competitor, then that is primary reporting - and WP:BLP is clear that we should be waiting for secondary sourcing for that. Nevertheless there are other articles, particularly those that talk about her overcoming addiction, that tell us significantly more about her and from which an article can be written. Indeed, that was why she was in the Museum London exhibit in the first place. Having said all that, there is indeed an issue that much of the coverage is local. She is an inspiring local interest story. I am not presonally convinced she is very notable beyond that, but I believe the Wikipedia consensus would generally find someone with this amount of coverage crosses the line. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:48, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Would be useful to have further analysis on extent of reliable sourcing and whether the GNG/BIO is met.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Goldsztajn (talk) 10:57, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dirty Karma

AfDs for this article:

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

Article about a Mexican band deleted in 2008 and recreated in 2012. I spotted only two independent sources with insignificant-to-sparse coverage ([5] and [6]). Checked archive.org, google news, google books. LastJabberwocky (talk) 10:14, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Mexico. LastJabberwocky (talk) 10:14, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A Case for Solomon

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

Zero content beyond existence of book itself, which is now mentioned in subject article Disappearance of Bobby Dunbar. U-Mos (talk) 09:36, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into a "Further reading" section of the article about the Disappearance of Bobby Dunbar. While that article currently mentions the book, this is only in passing. The book is not cited as a source and there are no publication details about the book that a formal citation or "Further reading" entry would carry. If the article is merely blanked and redirected then that publication information, which is in the stub article, would be lost. Also, there appears to be sufficient content in the article about the disappearance of Bobby Dunbar to flesh out the article about the book, A Case for Solomon with details of the authors' motivations for writing it, so I would support Keeping the article if it can be improved with additional content and sources. The purpose of deletion is to challenge the notability of an article, not delete articles that currently have little content. This article currently has one cited source which suggests the book is potentially notable if there are other sources that are not currently cited. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 10:08, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

HIT Universe

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

Other than the confirmation about sequels; no coverage on sources for a film universe. Vestrian24Bio 08:24, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. Vestrian24Bio 08:24, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: as a WP:SETINDEX and improve. The Hindi remake should be mentioned in the body of the text if such is the path chosen. -Mushy Yank. 10:31, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Renaming without ~~universe~~ is possible, back to HIT (film series)] (currently a redirect). Especially from May, 1, when a third instalment is supposed to be released. So that I am not sure the timing of this AfD is ideal. -Mushy Yank. 10:36, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dudu-Osun

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

Appears to be a brand-specific promotional fork of African black soap. Almost all the references are about black soap itself, and this page routinely uses general black soap references to make specific claims about the brand. Thought about g11 speedy delete but this one looks just real enough to possibly escape a speedy delete. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 08:22, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 08:22, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sanam Johar

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

Non-notable actor. Sources are insufficient for establishing notability, and subject does not appear to warrant a standalone article. Fails WP:NACTOR. CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:11, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and India. CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:11, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Delhi-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:17, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sympitar

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

Musical instrument created by Fred Carlson and mentioned on his website, and mentioned in an interview by the person who commissioned him Carson to make Sympitar. The only independent source I could find on Sympitar with sparse-to-moderate coverage is this [7]. LastJabberwocky (talk) 07:28, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and United States of America. LastJabberwocky (talk) 07:28, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cold in the Earth

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

Book that fails WP:GNG. No WP:SIGCOV found. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 19:54, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 19:54, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:42, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Not exactly very notable, but there is two reviews, which should be enough for NBOOK. Review in Publishers Weekly (here) and Brazosport Facts (here). Also seems to be a review in Booklist (Gale A77135100), but it's just a sentence, and the rest is other books. Also possibly one in The Armchair Detective Volume 27, but I can't find a copy online. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 05:53, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A good alternative might be for us to make a series page and have the individual entries redirect there. I'm a big fan of having series pages as opposed to individual book entries unless the books are exceptionally notable, like Twilight or ASOIAF/AGOT. If I have time, I'll try to make a page for this, but if anyone else wants to tackle this, feel free. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 17:18, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:38, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:58, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

VSS Raipur

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

non-notable. schools do not have inherent notability, they require significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources per WP:ORGCRIT. a WP:BEFORE has failed to produce this coverage. statements in-article about the school's chairman also do not give rise to notability per WP:INHERITORG. in short: fails WP:ORGCRIT. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 06:54, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:25, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Chhattisgarh-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:25, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:25, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Awards-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:25, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:25, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:27, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Michelle Amos

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

Fails WP:NBIO and WP:SIGCOV, sources for notability are mostly not WP:INDEPENDENT. Three are articles from NASA, Amos's longtime employer; two are from LDS Church-owned outlets (Deseret News, Church News) shortly after she began her term as a mission president for the LDS Church; one is a deadlink to SpaceRef; and one is a local news article about luncheon at which Amos was among the attendees. Jbt89 (talk) 06:53, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, Latter Day Saints, Engineering, and Spaceflight. Jbt89 (talk) 06:53, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Marvin Perkins

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

Fails WP:NBIO and WP:SIGCOV. Cites one source which is not WP:INDEPENDENT of Marvin Perkins and not a WP:RS. The seven external links are similarly neither reliable nor independent coverage. Jbt89 (talk) 06:44, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Latter Day Saints, and Utah. Jbt89 (talk) 06:44, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Cherry

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

Fails WP:NBIO and WP:SIGCOV. Of the four sources, three aren't even about Alan Cherry, just mention his name in passing. The fourth is a very sparse IMDB page. Jbt89 (talk) 06:33, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Latter Day Saints, and Utah. Jbt89 (talk) 06:33, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Crowdfense

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

Typical advertising spam and not notable company that deserves to be deleted Xrimonciam (talk) 08:04, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Xrimonciam (talk) 08:04, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing and United Arab Emirates. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:49, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep: The Vice piece cited in the article is fine, and together with this: [8] might be just enough to clear the NCORP bar. I don't think the article is ad-like at all, at least not compared to the pages for most startups that end up at AfD.WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 11:02, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There are a total of two pages of hits on GNews. Two pages. The sources there are all routine coverage, mentions, unreliable sources (e.g., blogs), and routine announcements. The Vice reference may meet the minimum threshold for ORGCRIT, but in no way is there enough significant coverage to come close to the minimum requirement of NCORP.--CNMall41 (talk) 21:11, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Lack of significant coverage in reliable source. Zuck28 (talk) 02:34, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I'm the page creator. I trust the AfD process to determine notability and obviously recurse myself from voting (if I was to vote, I would agree with Weak Keep), however I strongly object to the claim of "Typical advertising spam." I have no affiliation with the company, have a history of anti-vandalism work, and I have never been paid to edit Wikipedia.

While I'm here, I want to offer another source on top of what @WeirdNAnnoyed provided: https://techcrunch.com/2024/04/06/price-of-zero-day-exploits-rises-as-companies-harden-products-against-hackers/. Please note WP:TECHCRUNCH, however the article appears to be written by a staff writer without a COI, so thus should be sufficient in contributing to notability.

Thanks, Scaledish! Talkish? Statish. 00:53, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Sources don't prove notability and my searching didn't find anything else useful. Moritoriko (talk) 00:16, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The vice source is okay. I don't think the TechCrunch article counts as significant coverage. If they had sold a zero day exploit to someone that had an effect (that has been publicly reported) I think that would show how it is a notable company. Moritoriko (talk) 00:23, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - Deletion argument is misguided. The article is true to its sources and is only "spam" in the sense that the company intentionally made bold claims to get press coverage and then did. On the other hand, making a splash one time in 2018 does not meet my bar for keep. Regardless of outcome, thank you @Scaledish for writing this article. Brandon (talk) 08:31, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:39, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lean keep Misguided nomination, and # of hits in Google News is not a measure of notability. ITP article is trivial, but Vice (2x articles) and Techcrunch articles meet the threshold for WP:ORGCRIT. If requested, I can do the work of sourcing the article to meet the Heymann standard. Hmr (talk) 16:40, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I mentioned GNews, not because it is a measure of notability. If there are only two pages in GNews, it is a strong indicator the press don't feel the topic is worthy of being covered. If there were enough sources meeting ORGCRIT (there are not), I would have done HEY myself.--CNMall41 (talk) 18:27, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

oppose deletion, keep due to misguided nomination, company is legitimate and there are reliable sources about it, nbminator should perform WP:BEFORE submitting AfD, the "... company deserves to be deleted" appears subjective Nayyn (talk) 13:33, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Are you able to opine on notability assuming the AfD is judged on the NCORP arguments and not the merits of the nomination? --CNMall41 (talk) 17:20, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Let's not get sidetracked by the nom statement - do we have sources for WP:NCORP or not?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 02:02, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

oppose deletion, keep It clearly meets Wikipedia’s notability and sourcing requirements, and none of the deletion criteria apply.

1. Notability (WP:N)

It has received significant independent coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources: ** la Repubblica: “Vita da cacciatore di bachi informatici. ‘Vi racconto il grande mercato dello spionaggio digitale’”.^[1] ** Vice: Lorenzo Franceschi‑Bicchierai, “Startup Offers $3 Million to Anyone Who Can Hack the iPhone”.^[2] Joseph Cox, “As Phones Get Harder to Hack, Zero Day Vendors Hunt for Router Exploits”.^[3] ** TechCrunch: Lorenzo Franceschi‑Bicchierai, “Price of zero‑day exploits rises as companies harden products against hackers”.^[4] ** SC Media: “Crowdfense expands exploit acquisition program”.^[5] ** Intelligence Online: “UAE : Abu Dhabi‑based vulnerability researcher Crowdfense undergoes a small revolution”.^[6] “Emerging SIGINT powers seek own cyber‑bounty hunters”.^[7]

2. Verifiability & Reliable Sources (WP:V, WP:RS)

All statements are supported by reputable third‑party publications; no self‑published sources are used except for uncontroversial corporate details (founding date, headquarters).

3. Neutral Point of View (WP:NPOV)

The article neutrally describes Crowdfense’s business model, pricing, and ethical considerations, with proper attribution (e.g. “According to TechCrunch…”, “Vice reports…”).

4. Deletion Criteria

It is not a trivial or ephemeral subject, nor promotional spam, and contains no copyright or BLP issues.

In summary, it satisfies WP:NOTABILITY, WP:VERIFIABILITY, and WP:NPOV. Mollatim (talk) 11:06, 14 April 2025 (UTC)— Mollatim (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

References

^ D’Alessandro, Jaime (5 August 2019). "Vita da cacciatore di bachi informatici. "Vi racconto il grande mercato dello spionaggio digitale"". la Repubblica (in Italian). Retrieved 14 April 2025.
^ Franceschi‑Bicchierai, Lorenzo (25 April 2018). "Startup Offers $3 Million to Anyone Who Can Hack the iPhone". Vice. Retrieved 14 April 2025.
^ Cox, Joseph (7 March 2019). "As Phones Get Harder to Hack, Zero Day Vendors Hunt for Router Exploits". Vice. Retrieved 14 April 2025.
^ Franceschi‑Bicchierai, Lorenzo (6 April 2024). "Price of zero‑day exploits rises as companies harden products against hackers". TechCrunch. Retrieved 14 April 2025.
^ Staff, SC (9 April 2024). "Crowdfense expands exploit acquisition program". SC Media. Retrieved 14 April 2025.
^ "UAE : Abu Dhabi‑based vulnerability researcher Crowdfense undergoes a small revolution". Intelligence Online. 30 August 2023. Retrieved 14 April 2025.
^ "Emerging SIGINT powers seek own cyber‑bounty hunters". Intelligence Online. 16 May 2018. Retrieved 14 April 2025.

Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability and the references provided miss the mark. For example, the references provided by first-time-contributor Mollatim above mostly fail ORGIND as follows:

la Repubblica (in Italian) article relies entirely on information provided by the founder, Manzoni, who the author met in Rome, and has no "Independent Content", fails ORGIND
This first Vice article fails for the same reasons. The author was "told" by Manzoni all of the details and the article has no "Independent Content", fails ORGIND.
This also from Vice is totally based on an "announcement" and PR from Manzoni, fails ORGIND for the same reasons as the others above
Techcrunch article based on the company publishing an updated price list and regurgitates from that list what it is offering and what it offered previously. Unfortunately, the company doesn't provide any "Independent Content" about the company, it instead comments on the overall marketplace, and fails to provide in-depth info on the company. Fails ORGIND and CORPDEPTH.
This from SCWorld is based on the same "updated price list" information as the TechCrunch article, comes with the obligatory comments from the company, it is regurgitated PR, fails ORGIND and CORPDEPTH
The two references from Intelligence Online requires a subscription and I cannot access them right now. Based on the other references which first-time contributor posted above, none of which come close to meeting NCORP criteria, I'm inclined to assume these also will fail our criteria. Happy to change my stance if somebody can check out those article and confirm I'm mistaken tho. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:38, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The two references from Intelligence Online requires a subscription and I cannot access them right now

Perhaps something has changed or it is my computer's configuration but both pages are showing the message "An error occurred while loading the page, please contact customer service for assistance." Is this the same message you got?

first-time contributor

Interesting. Before going further I don't think this has any bearing on the notability debate, but a first time contributor with such proper formatting is rare. Hell, I can't format like that. I was curious how the Crowdfense article had grown in size so I looked at the edit history. IP 5.195.224.90 also added intelligence online citations to Zerodium as well as Crowdfense. They did turn up this article which could count towards notability? Article interweaves original thought, even though information still comes from the founder:

The policy of avoiding selling zero-day exploits to certain countries certainly sets Crowdfense apart. But it’s an interesting choice for a company headquartered in a nondemocratic Asian country notorious for both its love of new and expensive technology alongside its longstanding and continuing human rights abuses. Scaledish! Talkish? Statish. 04:13, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The links provided by the Mollatim, the knowledgeable first-time contributor, point to a "paid-up subscription" page which is why you see the error message. This link shows a cut-off version inviting a subscription. You can do the same with the second link if you like. I pointed out that Mollatim was a first-time contributor for the same reasons you've highlighted - the editor demonstrates knowledge of formatting and referencing beyond an editor with comparable (lack of) experience. I agree that your opinion and my opinion might be that Crowdfense is unusual, but that isn't how we determine notability, that is why we look for reliable third-party sources that meet NCORP criteria. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:08, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that your opinion and my opinion might be that Crowdfense is unusual, but that isn't how we determine notability, that is why we look for reliable third-party sources that meet NCORP criteria.

I assume you made comment in reference to the last paragraph of mine, which you erroneously (no hard feelings ^^) removed the blockquote from. It is a quotation from this article, which I remarked about. It is not my own opinion. Regards, Scaledish! Talkish? Statish. 00:11, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please note that there is no requirement for an article author to recuse themselves from an AfD about it. @Scaledish: feel free to amend your note to a !vote.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 06:24, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Catherine Stokes

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NBIO and WP:SIGCOV. Most cited sources are not WP:INDEPENDENT, a fact overlooked in the 2019 deletion discussion. Sources establishing notability consist of two articles from the Deseret News (Stokes sat on their editorial board, and one of the articles is announcing that fact), two human-interest stories from the Salt Lake Tribune (at the time they were written, party to a Joint Operating Agreement with the Deseret News [[9]] and operating out of the same building), and two interview transcripts on Mormon-themed blogs (possibly independent, but hardly WP:RS or WP:SIGCOV). Jbt89 (talk) 06:16, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, Latter Day Saints, and Utah. Jbt89 (talk) 06:16, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Khaldoun Sweis

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

The subject does not appear to meet the criteria in WP:NACADEMIC in spite of years of opportunity to do so. It seems kind of a strech for an associate professor to be notable. There are name-drops about who interviewed him, and a list of his publications, but that doesn't confer notability. ~Anachronist (talk) 16:05, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Christianity, and United States of America. Shellwood (talk) 16:38, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Definitely needs cleanup to remove the promotional material for his self-developed coaching method and his self-published CreateSpace book. Not notable as an academic, but he passes WP:NAUTHOR as the co-editor of Debating Christian Theism, which has received multiple reviews in independent sources, including International Journal for Philosophy of Religion, The Journal of Theological Studies, Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews, Philos, Theological Studies; and co-editor of Christian Apologetics, which has also received multiple independent reviews in the Heythrop Journal and the Southeastern Theological Review. Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:25, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~~Neutral (Lean~~ Keep) -- Definitely in the scope of "Some people who are clearly notable think that he's notable" based on the co-editorship of the OUP volume, plus one additional high prestige article. This in itself is borderline for WP:PROF -- it seems on the face of it enough for WP:AUTHOR, but these publications are not what that guideline was primarily meant to evaluate. My hunch is what Dclemens1971 was able to find will turn into more and will be a keep, but based on what I quickly found and what's here, I'm neutral. But it's definitely not an easy del. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 08:38, 4 April 2025 (UTC) (slight change of position -- see below)[reply]
Agreed, not an easy delete. I may withdraw this nomination, seeing how it pans out. ~Anachronist (talk) 15:30, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"'Some people who are clearly notable think that he's notable' based on the co-editorship of the OUP volume, ..." I don't think that follows at all. J.P. Moreland is the "name" author on the Oxford anthology, the other authors don't have to be notable for Oxford to be willing to publish it. Jahaza (talk) 15:05, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. he's third editor on the Oxford anthology, doesn't have an essay in the book himself, and the introduction is not a substantial piece of scholarship, it's only a page and a half long. The Zondervan anthology is a little better, but absent evidence of widespread adoption of the book as a textbook, I don't think he meets WP:NACADEMIC. I don't feel that it really meets WP:AUTHOR, he's only a part of the team compiling anthologies, not creating new works in his field. Jahaza (talk) 14:51, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Here are three accreditations I got from Dr. Khaldoun Sweis himself. I am positive links can be arranged.

"Dr. Sweis and I had a chance to work together on a project in Chicago’s South Loop neighborhood. The goal was to engage highly skeptical people in honest intellectual conversations around some of the deepest challenges to the Christian faith. Dr. Sweis spoke on the topic of ‘If there is a God, why is there so much evil.’ The conversation he led was spot on. His style of lecture was both hard hitting and emotionally powerful. He spoke from his heart and that came out in his passion on almost every point. But he also managed to make the highly intellectual and philosophical topics of his discussion accessible to everyone in the room. Beyond his ability to communicate, he was also a blessing to work with from the very beginning. I’m hopeful to work with Dr. Sweis many times in the future."

-Raef Chenery, South Loop Campus Pastor, Park Community Church

"Khaldoun Sweis is a solid Christian scholar with integrity and deep commitment to Jesus and His Kingdom. He has taught at a secular college for some time now, and he has remained faithful and learned a lot about how to talk to unbelievers. He is a respected teacher and speaker with passion and enthusiasm for his topic and the care of his audience. I was privileged to co-edit a book with Khaldoun that came out a few years ago with Oxford University Press. I recommend him as a speaker and friend of your ministry.– JP Moreland, Ph.D. JP Moreland Distinguished Professor of Philosophy at Talbot School of Theology at Biola University in La Mirada, California Moreland was selected in 2016 by The Best Schools as one of the 50 most influential living philosophers. He has authored, edited, or contributed papers to ninety-five books, including Does God Exist? (Prometheus), The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology, Debating Christian Theism (Oxford.) He has also published close to 90 articles in journals"

“It has been a privilege to know Khaldoun Sweis over the years. I am pleased to recommend him as a speaker and scholar who communicates with insight, honesty, and clarity about the reasonableness and relevance of the Christian faith in the marketplace of ideas.”

Paul Copan

Paul Copan is a Christian theologian, analytic philosopher, apologist, and author. He is currently a professor at Palm Beach Atlantic University and holds the endowed Pledger Family Chair of Philosophy and Ethics. AudunNilsenOslo (talk) 01:44, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If these testimonials (which look like book blurbs) are published anywhere, then they can be used. Otherwise it's no better than primary sourcing if Sweis is the only source. ~Anachronist (talk) 02:25, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Per their talk page[10], @AudunNilsenOslo is an employee of Khaldoun Sweis. --Jahaza (talk) 15:17, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Contrary to your claim about being a third editor, WP:NAUTHOR encompasses book editors: This guideline applies to authors, editors, journalists, filmmakers, photographers, artists, architects, and other creative professionals. Such a person is notable if...The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews, or of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series). (Emphasis added.) Co-editing two books that have received multiple independent periodical reviews counts toward WP:NAUTHOR. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:43, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Dclemens1971, I don't think that's likely to be the intent of that guideline. Editing an academic compilation is very different from the kind of work people tend to think of when they say "editor". It's not like editing, say, a new edition of Chaucer, or publishing a historical text for the first time, or being "so-and-so's editor". I might consider it for WP:NPROF if the edition was something like a Norton Anthology - but that kind of academic is almost certainly already notable for other things (that's why they're editing the Norton). -- asilvering (talk) 01:54, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Having worked many years ago in academic publishing (unrelated to this person's area of expertise), I would respectfully disagree; co-editors do a lot of work in selecting, editing and preparing anthologies -- but I understand others may not read NAUTHOR the same way I do here. Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:58, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aoidh (talk) 05:24, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Anachronist and Jahaza. Does not appear to meet WP:NACADEMIC or WP:NAUTHOR. GeorgiaHuman (talk) 00:35, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Hi

I was wondering about the many notations on this article.

There are so many of them, and ominous ones.

"This article contains wording that promotes the subject in a subjective manner without imparting real information. (March 2025)"

I think this may have suited my initial draft a little more than what is there now ?

"This article may need to be rewritten to comply with Wikipedia's quality standards. (March 2025)"

Can you be more specific?

"The topic of this article may not meet Wikipedia's notability guideline for academics. (March 2025)"

He has three degrees, is a member of two associations, has held talks all over the world, and has his name on the roster of three books. Not sure exactly what more you can expect? He, clearly, has made contributions in his field, even if they are not in paperback.

"This article's use of external links may not follow Wikipedia's policies or guidelines. (April 2025)"

I redid the publications-list, so I believe this point is now addressed ?

Yours truly Audun H. Nilsen — Preceding unsigned comment added by AudunNilsenOslo (talk • contribs)

Delete per nom and great analysis by Jahaza. Editorship is not enough to pass WP:NAUTHOR. Wikipedia is WP:NOTLINKEDIN or a place to WP:ADVERT. Gheus (talk) 03:34, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Question for @Gheus: Why does NAUTHOR say This guideline applies to authors, editors, journalists, filmmakers, photographers, artists, architects, and other creative professionals if, as you say, editorship is not enough to pass it? Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:45, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 06:11, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A small switch in my position -- I previously was Neutral (lean Keep), but now I switched above to a full Keep -- I was leaning Keep based on Oxford University Press edited volume, which is a major notable player in academic religious studies but might not be enough on its own. I didn't see that he was also lead author of an edited volume in "Zondervan Academic" Press, which is one of the major presses in (non-denominational) Christian academic research. Either of these press's endorsements on their own is borderline for me, but together they suggest a notability across two nearby but distinct spheres, and with it, I'm confident the encyclopedia is improved by including this article. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 10:01, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Reason I Can't Find My Love

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

Non-notable drama series that likely only has an article due to its use of songs by Namie Amuro. Both the English and Japanese versions of the article are almost completely unsourced. Performing a search for Japanese-language sources only results in product listings, streaming sites and forum posts, not reliable coverage. MidnightMayhem 06:00, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Japan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:20, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No reliable sources to prove its notability. Warriorglance(talk to me) 06:25, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I found an article from Oricon stating that the first episode had a 17% nationwide viewership. Mantan Web reports that its final episode had an 18.4% nationwide viewership. It seems to have been highly viewed in Japan. lullabying (talk) 07:08, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Correction: they're not nationwide viewerships, but overall viewerships in the Kanto region of Japan. lullabying (talk) 07:11, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the sources found by Lullabying, which seem to provide notability for the minimum WP:BASIC criteria. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 10:19, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 06:08, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tango Bar (2024 film)

AfDs for this article:

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

Promo for non notable film. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. No sign of any reviews. Being screened at minor festivals and winning minor awards does not satisfy NFILM. One of multiple promo pieces for Francisco Villarroel and his creations made by the same spammer. duffbeerforme (talk) 03:37, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Previous AFD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tango Bar (2021 film). duffbeerforme (talk) 03:46, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Venezuela. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:06, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Surely this is a hoax article. As the AFD discussion @Duffbeerforme linked above, it had a deletion back in 2021 but with has been put back up only with 2024 replacing the 2021 in it's title. An editor from Mars (talk) 06:19, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I think IMDB got fooled by this article. An editor from Mars (talk) 06:21, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like it was in production in 2021 and finally got released in 2024 which explains the two different dates. duffbeerforme (talk) 06:46, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

From what I see in Spanish, given the coverage and awards/nominations, I consider a redirect (and merge) to List of Venezuelan films#2020s would seem appropriate, at least.-Mushy Yank. 07:36, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Chippla ✍️ - Best Regards 10:36, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep César Bolívar working on it, distribution by Gran Cine, and winning an award at ELCO, probably places it as one of the bigger Venezuelan films of the last few years, especially among internal productions. I can look for more sources but, besides the COI, there doesn't seem to be a reason to delete. Kingsif (talk) 22:12, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 06:07, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Betiton

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

Refences in this article are made up of press releases, primary sources and marketing copies distributed to other websites. Check well and you find nothing solid and credible per WP:NCORP. CPDJay (talk) 14:15, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Malta. CPDJay (talk) 14:15, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Games and Websites. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:09, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the concerns about sourcing and notability. While some of the current sources are not ideal, I believe the subject is not far away from Wikipedia’s notability standards and can be improved rather than deleted. That said considering that the brand is acknowledged with several awards from SiGMA and SBC, covered on their official websites, and testifying that it is notable for its industry.

The article cites different sources, even though some of the current references may not be ideal, but I am working on researching and adding better sources to strengthen the article. Victoria Gregor (talk) 14:43, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 12:57, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as it makes more sense to improve it than delete it. _Signed, Pichemist ^{( Contribs | Talk )} 07:21, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, it makes more sense to delete barely-disguised PR. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:55, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:55, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 06:05, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Luminosity Entertainment (American film company)

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Companies, and United States of America. CycloneYoris ^talk! 06:03, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:17, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:18, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: In case this page was kept, kindly move this article to Luminosity Entertainment which is a red link. The current title includes a unnessesary disambiguation. Thanks and No opinion on the AFD itself. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 10:15, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Radio in the Flemish Community

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

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

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

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:50, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Mass media in Belgium#Radio as an ATD for an unjustified spinoff. Not sure that any of the information is missing there yet access and history would be preserved. gidonb (talk) 09:47, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A quick search of Google Books shows the following English-language sources: Who Owns the World's Media? Media Concentration and Ownership Around the World (Oxford University Press) [11], pages 42-43; Media Compass: A Companion to International Media Landscapes (Wiley) [12], pages 22-23; The Media in Europe: The Euromedia Handbook (SAGE Publications) [13], pages 21-23. I'm sure there's more, in English and in other languages. If there were an article on Radio in Belgium, equivalent to Television in Belgium, it might be appropriate to merge this article there - but I don't think that merging or redirecting to Mass media in Belgium, which covers radio, tv, press, would be appropriate. RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:33, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

Keep Belgium is an unusual case in that its media, like many other things there, is bifurcated by language. Because of that, the structure of a "Radio in X" article would be very bifurcated to the point of being two articles, one of which would be this. A Radio in Wallonia article should be the next step. Sammi Brie (she/her · t · c) 07:29, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It would be better to have a Radio in the French Community of Belgium (This also covers Brussels). A Radio in the German-speaking Community of Belgium is also possible but maybe the population is too low to have generated enough sources, in that case a section Media in German-speaking Community of Belgium could suffice. Rolluik (talk) 09:26, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Donald Pelmear

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

No evidence of notability found. Played in notable series like Dr Who, but only a minor role. He is just a name appearing in lists of actors, but doesn't get further attention in books[14]. No news sources paid significant attention to his death[15]. General Google results are wiki's and fora, no indepth reliable sources there either[16]. Fram (talk) 09:30, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Two Autumns in Paris

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

UCPH Department of Chemistry

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Straive

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:19, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:20, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:20, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Vincenzo Soprano

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:21, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:21, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Stage School Australia

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

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

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

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

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

Jack Coleman (soccer)

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

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

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

Delete Clearly fails basic WP:GNG. Govvy (talk) 08:35, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Preetha Ram

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

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

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

Susan (drag queen)

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

Does not meet notability criteria. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 00:00, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 April 5. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:19, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Belgium. Shellwood (talk) 00:31, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:36, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per nom. No notability demonstrated in the present sources. Svartner (talk) 08:59, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Smruthi K

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

Fails Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sahar Hashmi

AfDs for this article:

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

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

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

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

I already replied to all this in the other AfD I linked precisely for that purpose, and in the precedent discussion about this actress. See there. -Mushy Yank. 07:53, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

[Repubblica20190805-1] D’Alessandro, Jaime (5 August 2019). "Vita da cacciatore di bachi informatici. "Vi racconto il grande mercato dello spionaggio digitale"". la Repubblica (in Italian). Retrieved 14 April 2025.

[Vice20180425-2] Franceschi‑Bicchierai, Lorenzo (25 April 2018). "Startup Offers $3 Million to Anyone Who Can Hack the iPhone". Vice. Retrieved 14 April 2025.

[Vice20190307-3] Cox, Joseph (7 March 2019). "As Phones Get Harder to Hack, Zero Day Vendors Hunt for Router Exploits". Vice. Retrieved 14 April 2025.

[TechCrunch20240406-4] Franceschi‑Bicchierai, Lorenzo (6 April 2024). "Price of zero‑day exploits rises as companies harden products against hackers". TechCrunch. Retrieved 14 April 2025.

[SCMedia20240409-5] Staff, SC (9 April 2024). "Crowdfense expands exploit acquisition program". SC Media. Retrieved 14 April 2025.

[IntOnline20230830-6] "UAE : Abu Dhabi‑based vulnerability researcher Crowdfense undergoes a small revolution". Intelligence Online. 30 August 2023. Retrieved 14 April 2025.

[IntOnline20180516-7] "Emerging SIGINT powers seek own cyber‑bounty hunters". Intelligence Online. 16 May 2018. Retrieved 14 April 2025.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]