Misplaced Pages

:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Actors and filmmakers - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Deletion sorting

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Dclemens1971 (talk | contribs) at 14:58, 30 December 2024 (Listing Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Peggy Batchelor.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 14:58, 30 December 2024 by Dclemens1971 (talk | contribs) (Listing Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Peggy Batchelor.)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff) Shortcut
All deletion discussions relating to filmmakers, directors and other non-actor film-related people should now be listed on this page.
Deletion Sorting
Project

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

Adding a new AfD discussion
Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:
  1. Edit this page and add {{Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
  2. You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Actors and filmmakers|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.
There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.
Removing a closed AfD discussion
Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.
Other types of discussions
You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Actors and filmmakers. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.
Further information
For further information see Misplaced Pages's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.


Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:
Purge page cache watch
Scan for actor AfDs

 Scan for filmmaker AfDs


Actors and filmmakers

Peggy Batchelor

Peggy Batchelor (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)

Contested draftification of an article on a non-notable actor. There is no reliable source for the WP:OR claim that she was the oldest-ever actor who had appeared in Doctor Who (not that that is even a claim to notability). The source for this claim appears to be a Doctor Who wiki. She fails WP:NACTOR as her handful of roles appear to be minor parts, and they are sourced to IMDb, an unreliable source. She fails WP:GNG/WP:NBIO for lack of coverage in independent, reliable sources. There are a couple of articles in a hyper-local village newsletter (, ), another WP:SPS (), and a self-published as-told-to quasi-autobiography. As for WP:ANYBIO #1, I looked into her Fellowship in the Royal Society of Arts, but it's not a rare honor (there are 31,000 active Fellows) and can be acquired by online application and payment of a fee. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:58, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

@Dclemens1971: Hello. I understand. However, what I do not understand is how some articles such as this one are accepted but not others. This seems like discrimination. There are people as notable as Peggy Batchelor or less notable than her who have pages. Please explain. Spectritus (talk) 15:04, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

It's not discrimination in any way. It's about independent, secondary, reliable sources. IMDB isn't a reliable source. Wendover News is not likely an independent source. Peggy Batchelor's as-told-to, self-published autobiography is not a reliable, independent, or secondary sources. Pointing to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS doesn't make Batchelor any more notable. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:13, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
@Dclemens1971: Doesn't the fact someone wrote a book about her make her notable enough? Also, may I ask how users are supposed to find sources if Misplaced Pages condemns almost all of them?
The author wrote a book "as told to" her, which means it's basically Peggy Batchelor talking about herself, and thus not independent. And the biography was published by AuthorHouse, which is a vanity press and thus it's a WP:SELFPUBLISHED source and not reliable. English Misplaced Pages does not condemn almost all sources; it has specific standards, and the ones you used in this article don't meet them. If you have questions about individual sources or sourcing more generally, please visit WP:RSN. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:25, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete: Zero coverage found for this individual, acting roles are minor, would not pass notability for actors. A voice role in Doctor Who isn't the stuff of notability. Oaktree b (talk) 19:45, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete She was featured in only 1-2 episodes of each TV show she was in and played relatively minor roles in films. The article itself seems to be fixated on the (likely original research) trivia of her having once been the oldest person who had been a cast member of Doctor Who, which as we discussed in this AfD, isn't particularly relevant or notable. Waddles 🗩 🖉 01:19, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Note I agree this would be better in draft space. She also had a stage career, which has not been included in the article yet. I am sourcing and adding references and information, and will then consider whether she meets notability guidelines. If she is, the article needs editing, as it reads more like a eulogy than an encyclopaedic entry. RebeccaGreen (talk) 11:14, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
    Thanks. Spectritus (talk) 10:39, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep Having found and added sources, I think that she does meet WP:BASIC. There are multiple, independent sources, some substantial, some less so, but they add up. There is coverage across her life in both national newspapers and local papers around the UK (around England, and also Northern Ireland and Scotland). The article could still use some work - I'll work on the lede and info box. RebeccaGreen (talk) 02:55, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
    Unfortunately, I cannot view the many British Newspaper Archive links you added since I don't subscribe and it's not available through the Misplaced Pages Library. However, I looked at a few of the other links you added and they don't seem to add up:
    None of these adds up to WP:SIGCOV. Can you better characterize the British Newspaper Archive sources so editors can properly evaluate them? Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:09, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
    As I wrote, I think that she meets WP:BASIC - "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability." The number of times a source is referenced gives an idea of the amount of detail in the sources - the profiles of her published in newspapers in Tyne and Wear and Cambridgeshire are particularly detailed, while the Belfast source has a bit less. There is more detail in The Stage article about the drama school she founded in Essex that I have not included. There is coverage over many years - 1925, 1938, 1947 all deriving from her appearances at the Wembley Tattoo; 1946-1966 in stage shows; 1970s-1980s as founder of a drama school and as a nationally recognised adjudicator.
    You mention that being a Fellow of the Royal Society of Arts is not a rare honour. Being a Fellow of the Guildhall School of Music and Drama is - information online states "The Guildhall School offers the following honorary awards for distinguished services to the School and to the profession: the FGSM (Fellow of the Guildhall School of Music and Drama), awarded to distinguished professors, examiners and past students and the Hon GSM (Honorary Member of the Guildhall School of Music and Drama), awarded for services to music or drama and to the Guildhall School. Limited to 100 holders at any one time." That is an indication of her professional standing, in addition to the news coverage about her.
    I am not suggesting that all the sources contribute to notability - 3 of those you link to provide evidence of facts in the article (her appearances in two radio programmes; the date she left the drama school she founded; the facts that she taught at drama festivals as well as adjudicating, and that she worked at drama festivals in Wales as well as England and N. Ireland). RebeccaGreen (talk) 01:34, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Eddy Maday

Eddy Maday (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable actor with roles in only one notable film. None of the sources are reliable, and I found none with significant coverage online. I initially BLARed this to Presence (2024 film)#Cast, but it was reverted by the article's creator. ''']''' (talk • contribs) 01:24, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was moved by an Admin to Sajjad Hussain Palash due to vandalism‎. (non-admin closure) ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 16:21, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Mortoza Polash

Mortoza Polash (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I think this is spam. The main claim to fame is an award for a movie not listed on their IMDB page. This accolade seems to be stolen from someone with a similar name https://www.imdb.com/name/nm15865164/ Bovlb (talk) 17:46, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Digging into this further, this may be a repurposing of the article as it used to be named "Polash Sajjad", which would correspond better to the award winner. Article moved by @Spicy, but the original change of name is older and by an SPA @KoushikHassan360. So maybe reversion and moving would be better than deletion. Bovlb (talk) 17:56, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
Old version restored and moved to Sajjad Hussain Palash. I'd like a second pair of eyes on this, so I'll let another admin close this. Bovlb (talk) 18:04, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Charlotte Barker

Charlotte Barker (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)

This has existed for 18 years without a single source which is actually about the actor, and I can't find any sources that are actually about her, as opposed to her being mentioned in articles about her father. Black Kite (talk) 11:10, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Sometimes it's kinder to delete. But I will bite and expand the article and let everyone else decide. (Perhaps there are 5k pageviews in the last month for a reason.) Cielquiparle (talk) 12:16, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
Cielquiparle There is a TikTok "influencer" with the same name. Black Kite (talk) 16:58, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
Right. Plus everyone else with the same name, like the Director of Film Restoration at Paramount Pictures. Cielquiparle (talk) 17:21, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisted to give Cielquiparle and RebeccaGreen a chance to dig up more sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 13:37, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge‎ to Kurdish cinema. Vanamonde93 (talk) 02:01, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Karzan Kardozi

Karzan Kardozi (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 director doesn't seem to be famous enough to own an article on Misplaced Pages. NameGame (talk) 17:32, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Can you define what "doesn't seem famous use Enough?" mean and what standard you go by? If you delete articles by the "doesn't seem famous use Enough?" reason, more than one third of articles in Misplaced Pages will have to be delete. Naderjamie6 (talk) 17:50, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
And how much "Famous" is enough for a Kurdish filmmaker to have its own article on Wiki? Can you provide rules and regulation for such "Fame?" Naderjamie6 (talk) 17:54, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
The reason given "doesn't seem to be famous enough" is not enough to have article deleted. The filmmakers is Kurdish, what kind of fame would required by Misplaced Pages standard to have article listed? Wendy2024 (talk) 18:03, 27 December 2024 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE Spiderone 19:13, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
This article is about a Kurdish Filmmaker and it is important to stay as part of Misplaced Pages. Citation and required link provided to verify the identity of the filmmaker. If this is deleted, then most of the other article about Kurdish Filmmakers will have to be deleted also if the reason giving is "Not famous enough". Joreannorde (talk) 18:25, 27 December 2024 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE Spiderone 19:13, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep. He has written and directed dozen books and film in Kurdish, in US, UK and Kurdistan, and still active. Also many citation to show him as being known be it in Kurdish or English. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BonitueBera (talk • contribs) 00:33, 29 December 2024 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE Spiderone 22:22, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Comment: I'm not really finding much out there in reliable sources. This, paired with the large amount of sockpuppets, makes me wonder if the director should be mentioned on Misplaced Pages at all. There are some things like this, but so far it's really slow going. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:02, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
  • 'Merge per Mushy Yank. There just isn't much out there about this guy. There are a handful of sources here and there, but not really enough to show firm notability. I do think that he deserves to be mentioned somewhere, so the Kurdish cinema page is a good landing spot. If a non-sockpuppet can find enough sourcing I'm open to being persuaded. As far as the socks go - please stop. This is extremely counterproductive and actually makes it more likely that a page might get outright deleted and the person or topic not mentioned on Misplaced Pages at all. People will also become far more skeptical of the sourcing as well. The reason for this is that historically, topics plagued with sockpuppetry tend to be more likely to only have coverage in places engaging in paid journalism (ie, the person paid for someone to write about them). I've seen cases where good sources were questioned as unreliable. This is why it's such a bad idea - sometimes it can result in the exact opposite of the intended purpose. Rather than sockpuppetry, it's better to make a strong case with solid sources. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:12, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 00:24, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Karl Dominik

Karl Dominik (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 WP:SUSTAINED notability here and highly promotional Amigao (talk) 17:20, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, China, Poland, and Canada. Spiderone 17:21, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete: I am unable to access the Shanghai Daily source in the article (source 2), and the other sources are all unreliable primary sources. By googling the subject's name in Chinese (凱洱), I found only one article mentioning him as part of the cast in a 2023 film called Variant. Even searching for the subject on Douban shows that he has appeared in only eleven roles, most of them are just cast extras and none of which seem significant. Fails GNG and NACTOR. —Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul） 05:54, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
    • This is the China Daily source that was also printed in the Shanghai Daily (it is a passing mention):
      • Hodges, Matt (2014-06-26). "Shanghai's star turn". China Daily. Archived from the original on 2024-12-30. Retrieved 2024-12-30.

        The article notes: ""I like the fact that most of the roles I've been playing recently are the good-guy roles, not the stereotypical 'bad foreigner' that seems to be all too prevalent in Chinese productions," says Karl Dominik, who owns Constellation talent agency in Shanghai. "I am daunted by the amount of Chinese I have to learn, but I love a challenge." Another of Shanghai's top foreign acting talents, Englishman Charles Mayer, had a high-profile supporting role in Yip Man 2 (2010) as a corrupt police sergeant in wartime Hong Kong. It was exactly the kind of racially charged role people like Dominik are eager to avoid."

      Cunard (talk) 11:07, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
Thanks a lot, Cunard! I guess this confirms that there are literally no sources with SIGCOV on the subject and reinforces my !vote. —Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul） 06:57, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Sandstein 16:41, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Frank Pando

Frank Pando (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NACTOR with apparently only one notable role rather than the multiple ones called for, and subject apparently requests deletion (see the Talk page), which should give a lean in a marginal case. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 15:45, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

RJ Sarithiran

RJ Sarithiran (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NACTOR, trivial coverage and passing mentions in media. There are zero sources that provide WP:SIGCOV to this personality. Nxcrypto Message 13:31, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:31, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz 05:28, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Aaron Refvem

AfDs for this article:
Aaron Refvem (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NACTOR. Absolutiva (talk) 05:12, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Valley2city (talk) 01:26, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Matthias Kirste

Matthias Kirste (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)

An article about a living person without references. A proper way would be to go via BLP-PROD, but some references were previously in the article and were removed, so that I decided to try going here. Apparently the article was created and mainly written by a COI editor, and then almost everything was removed. Ymblanter (talk) 21:02, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Raegan Revord

AfDs for this article:
Raegan Revord (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)

Per Talk:Raegan Revord#Requested move 19 December 2024, this title was previously salted and the subject's notability is doubful. * Pppery * it has begun... 01:44, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

  • Keep, but... there is a pending AfC submission at Draft:Raegan Revord. Ultimately, the two versions should be merged; the draft has a lot sourcing given the repeated questions about passing WP:NACTOR. It's a borderline case at the moment, but a bit WP:IAR in this case, as thousands of people a day are looking for an article on this actress who starred in a successful popular mainstream sitcom, and the only star from that show for whom we don't have an article due to it being caught up in WP bureaucracy. The multiple AfC rejections caused the page to be salted, which caused someone to create it at a disambiguated title, and here we are, when we shouldn't be; the procedures have failed us in this case. So, merge the two versions and let's stop failing our users, topic easily passes WP:GNG. 03:32, 26 December 2024 (UTC) Mdewman6 (talk) 06:15, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
    Per the sources in this article, I don't see it easily passing GNG. People is mostly quotes from her, so is EW. Doesn't make them useless as sources, but not good from the WP:N perspective. WP:BLP-goodness of looper/thetab etc not obvious. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:00, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
  • keep Apart from qualifying for WP:GNG, she seems to have won an award at Family Film Award and a nomination at Young Artist Award thus may pass WP:ANYBIO, merging with Draft:Raegan Revord will be appreciated because the draft is with much information also if this article is deleted per WP:TOOSOON, draft has no reason to still stand ANU 06:05, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, Television, Advertising, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:57, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Weak delete -- fails WP:NACTOR due to not yet having that second significant role, so best covered in the Young Sheldon article. The claim of meeting WP:ANYBIO rests on the Family Film Award, which does not seem to meet the "a well-known and significant award or honor" requirement by at least this basic sniff test: there's no article on it. Argument that other people in the show have articles and thus she should have one is basically a WP:INHERITED one. However, Draft status is a reasonable place for someone on the edge of but not meeting WP:NACTOR -- one significant role puts her halfway there. It allows us to maintain it while waiting for that second role. A draft does not cost us much, and it would be silly to delete all the work that has been done on it. If for some reasons this is kept, it would be better to merge with... or really, largely replace it with... the draft version. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 07:59, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep but it's tangled. First off, this is the perfect case why we should not religiously apply the rules. Revord is easily too well-known not to have a Misplaced Pages article, and deleting articles on actors that our readers see on their TVs for years in massively successful shows for the technical reason "that is their only notable credit" is a complete failure to be with the times. It also means popular actors below 18 are arbitrarily barred from having Misplaced Pages entries, simply because it is much less likely to achieve our threshold before you have worked in the industry for some time. Any rule that prevents editors from adding articles on main cast members of top 10 TV shows needs to go away. Second, this article must have become a personal quest for some Wikipedians to stop at all costs. It should have been accepted long ago, and far too many editing hours has already been wasted by me and others on the futile hope these editors would understand that there can be exceptions to the current NACTOR rule and that Revord easily qualifies as such. Sometimes child actors decide to leave the spotlight, and if that happens with Revord, we should first have the article, and then we can remove it, if it becomes clear that Young Sheldon will be her only significant credit for the forseeable future. That other articles with a similar level of notability (take Aubrey Anderson-Emmons for instance) remain unchallenged is likely only because of the arbitrary capricious nature of a process where a few or even a single editor can make it their personal goal to come up with whatever procedural objection that's needed to stop an article, zero common sense required, while not spending any energy on stopping other articles with more or less claim to fame. That this article weren't accepted years ago remains a clear example of Misplaced Pages failure, full stop, and this is our chance to rectify a long-standing mistake. CapnZapp (talk) 12:18, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
Also, any argument for/against deletion needs to include everything added to Draft:Raegan Revord, which this article creator seems to have ignored/bypassed entirely. While that's not ideal, if we decide to delete this article, that will set back the acceptance of the draft for even more years, and that is worse than accepting this article (and then merging in the draft). CapnZapp (talk) 12:18, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
"Any rule that prevents editors from adding articles on main cast members of top 10 TV shows needs to go away." Disagree, quite strongly. The internet is bigger than WP. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:08, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
Strong Keep I agree with your arguments (and love your passion). I definitely think the draft should be merged because what's currently there is kind of weak, but a cursory look at the draft looks like it has more information and sources. So, I say keep the article and merge it with the draft. (I'm still semi-new to wikipedia (especially since I don't use it all that often), so I can't say I know all the rules (of which there seem to be many, but I can understand why), but is there something keeping people from just merging the draft right now? I thought that during deletion discussions people could work to improve the article? And incorporating info & sources from the draft would almost certainly improve the article? (I kind of wanted to do that, but I assume there's a reason I can't if no one else is?) MoreWomenOnWiki (talk) 02:33, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
Marging is work, and doing the merge now might be wasted effort -- if we choose "delete", it will just get deleted. It's not necessary for evaluating this, since this article is not being evaluated based on its content but on its subject. It seems likely that if the decision is "keep", we will simply delete the article and move the draft version into its place, which is simpler than merging. (Merging is useful when you have two versions that each have worthwhile material that isn't in the other, but last I checked, that was not the case here.) -- Nat Gertler (talk) 03:32, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Comment If this is kept, the draft should be back-filled into the history. As it stands, the accepted version in mainspace sounds nearly identical to the older rejected and multiply-declined draft. Therefore, the draft's history should remain to give original credit for those words. And this also casts doubt on the authenticity of the current article's editors' contributions as being truely their own, vs end-run around the non-acceptance of the older draft. DMacks (talk) 05:18, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
Agreed. Consider this to be a more succinct statement than what I tried to say in my Keep but it's tangled comment above. CapnZapp (talk) 11:19, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
Since there is a general acceptance in this discussion that the draft version is better (whether or not it's sufficient), might the simplest way to handle this if the decision is "keep" to simply delete the live version and move the draft into place? I don't quickly note anything from the live version that would need to be merged in. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 11:52, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep per Mdewman6, ANUwrites and CapnZapp. Subject has been working as an actress for over ten years and has had about 150 credited TV appearances, with most of those in episodes of a top-rated TV series. More than sufficient to establish clear notability for the purpose of having a Misplaced Pages entry. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 07:16, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
Comment: Just to clarify, since you included me in your "per": There's lots of people with 100+ television credits that Misplaced Pages rightly ignore, if those are all bit roles. I'm not (strongly) arguing she fulfills the current NACTOR criteria (though I wouldn't be surprised if she is), I'm arguing Misplaced Pages's criteria are wrong if we can't add articles on young actors simply because not only do they need one successful show, they need two. This heavily tilts Misplaced Pages's coverage toward adult actors and away from young superstars, sometimes with massive online presences, that people are interested in but our stodgy project choose to ignore. But child actors aren't simply children whose integrity we should protect above all - these individuals and their parental guardians CHOSE public life. They clearly appreciate publicity more than privacy. (No, you can't be part of Hollywood anonymously unless you're a baby) Also, in this case Young Sheldon was a major show where it just so happened that one of its main cast wasn't bluelinked in the main article... and that was (of course) a female. Gender equality is another heavy argument to maintain an article on Revord. All this to say that if you "per" me, you per "so what she hasn't had a second notable role, here we should clearly make an exception from NACTOR". CapnZapp (talk) 11:17, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
This seems to be arguing that we should have lower standards for child actors than for adult ones, which seems precisely backwards to me. To the degree that a child actor is making any decision, they are not informed maturely in making themselves so public. There are several ways in which Misplaced Pages considers minors worthy of additional protection, and Ms. Revord is still a minor at this point. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 12:00, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
Thank you for reading but my argument "this rule hurts child actors more" does not mean I want to lower the standards for child actors. I don't have any general issue with the 2-roles criteria, iff we accept that thresholds and rules have justifiable exceptions. The current standards demonstrably result in articles on actors (especially young ones whose careers are just starting) remaining absent until well after they have completed a seven season run of a top 10 show, which is absurd. CapnZapp (talk) 18:18, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
Consider WP:MINORS (that essay is an essay). Having a WP-article is not an achievement, nor does it necessarily do the subject any favors. The older someone is, it's a bit more likely they have WP:GNG-coverage. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:45, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
GTrang (talk) 15:34, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
I think that's all too complicated. I think we should simply not worry about it for a few days, until this AFD is over. Then we delete Raegan Revord and if the outcome is keep, move Draft:Raegan Revord to Raegan Revord. If the outcome is delete, we just leave the draft where it is, as the draft of something that has a reasonable chance of crossing the notability rubicon soon. There is nothing in the currently-live article that needs to be saved. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 16:00, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
OK, I have added a fourth possibility to my list. GTrang (talk) 17:24, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
Agree with that. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:30, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Reverting non-admin close and relisting as an uninvolved administrator in my individual capacity.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 16:20, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Noting that there was a DRV at Misplaced Pages:Deletion_review/Log/2025_January_3#3_January_2025. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:42, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
There is no reason to relist this. The comments above are clearly for the keep. This can be closed immediately. Marbe166 (talk) 17:08, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
You have made your position amply clear, both here and at the article's talkpage. DMacks (talk) 17:38, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Beeblebrox 01:01, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Harshada Pathare

AfDs for this article:
Harshada Pathare (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article on Harshada Pathare fails to meet Misplaced Pages's notability guidelines for authors and filmmakers. The references cited are primarily from non-independent or low-quality sources, such as News24, Yahoo Finance, and promotional platforms like the Tagore International Film Festival’s own website. These sources lack the depth and reliability required to establish significant coverage or independent notability. Additionally, the article has a promotional tone, which violates Unambiguous Advertising or Promotion. The subject's notable achievements, including awards and books, are not adequately supported by independent, verifiable sources.

There is also a possible Conflict of Interest, as this subject has a significant creation and deletion history dating back to 2018, with five drafts and one main space article being deleted under G11. It is unlikely that this repeated effort to create the article is coincidental, especially considering the subject's limited notability as evidenced by their sparse Google presence. This raises questions about why multiple attempts have been made to establish this page, despite a lack of substantial independent coverage.

Upon further investigation, the creator of this page appears to have a pattern of creating articles with extensive personal data, often citing only one or two references. This raises concerns about verifiability and how the creator is obtaining such detailed information when it is not publicly available. These issues, combined with the lack of reliable, independent sources and a promotional tone, warrant deletion of this article for failing to meet Misplaced Pages’s standards for notability, neutrality, and verifiability. Kriji Sehamati (talk) 11:27, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

*Keep this info and RS are keepable or notable according to WP guidelines StoryReader1999 (talk) 21:13, 31 December 2024 (UTC) Struck vote by sock.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:43, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz 07:14, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Slipz

Slipz (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)

Doesn't seem to meet WP:ANYBIO, his only notability is being a cameraman for a streamer. No reliable source used either. Http iosue (talk) 05:46, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

David Ayer's unrealized projects

David Ayer's unrealized projects (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)

With a recent expansion of what is considered "unrealized", it's really gotten to a point I have realized these articles largely stand to be rather WP:TRIVIA and WP:FANCRUFT. As higlighted by @Erik: at Luca Guadagnino's unrealized projects, "if a so-called "unrealized project" is not talked about in retrospect, it has little value", and as per WP:IINFO, ""To provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources." Just a contemporary news article about a filmmaker being attached to so-and-so, with no later retrospective commentary, does not strike me as discriminate encyclopedic content to have". I no longer see these pages being of note, and is just a trivial list of several projects, whether they were notable or not, that never came to be, their development or attempted production not being of vital note. Rusted AutoParts 20:24, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

  • Comment: Why proceed with a single AFD case now, as opposed to having an RFC to determine if such articles are appropriate, and with what criteria? Erik (talk | contrib) 20:34, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
    Given the dialogue with Zander on Guadagnino's, it's become clear these pages are purely just seen as trivia. Some very few unrealized projects are indeed are of interest, but when looking at the page, and it's largely "X announced plans to make X, but never did", it just doesn't scream as being a vital article to have. Terry Zwigoff's unrealized projects is particularly exemplary of this. Rusted AutoParts 20:40, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Film, Lists, and United States of America. Skynxnex (talk) 20:35, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep: Perfectly standard. Sources. WP:SPLITLIST applies. -Mushy Yank. 01:32, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
    A page having sources doesn’t make the topic of value. It’s a list of films that never happened, or didn’t happen with the person, which makes their involvement with it both not that important to the person, or the project. Why does a list of that need to be on Misplaced Pages as its own page? Where does this end then? Does this open the door towards “Tom Cruise’s untaken roles”? Rusted AutoParts 01:39, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
    What opens the door towards "Tom Cruise's untaken roles" is reliable outlets taking "Tom Cruise's untaken roles" up as an in-depth subject. I.e. sources, and sources only - but the sources have to handle the untaken roles as an entity. Standalone articles about individual scrapped projects can't be synthesized to a Misplaced Pages article per WP:SYNTH. An article about a director's turned-down or walked-over direction opportunities survived AFD not too long ago. Geschichte (talk) 10:41, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
    And in my opinion it probably shouldn’t have. Clearly, what constitutes “unrealized” currently is too broad and thus it has entitled editors to include all these different projects that really don’t fall under “unrealized”. A lot of these articles have sections where it’s just like a sentence or two, and it’s about the director being “offered”, or being “considered” to direct something they never did. Or projects that were announced once and never discussed at all again, or even projects they’re verifiably still attached to and working on. That to me just makes these lists become flashy tidbit factoids that if the project was actually seen through with someone else it can just easily be noted in the film’s article, or the directors article. A whole article dedicated to mostly unproduced films with no notable production history is superfluous. Rusted AutoParts 14:00, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
Offtopic fightpicking.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please note that "Perfectly standard" or "No issue in keeping the article" are not guideline-based arguments.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 08:27, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Maybe not (although common sense should incite us to believe that a perfectly standard page is very likely an acceptable page as standalone list/article.) But SPLITLIST is a guideline, and a solid reason for keeping list-formatted pages. -Mushy Yank. 13:19, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:29, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Mwijaku

Mwijaku (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

After observing the article being too promotional (still is), I moved the it back to draft space hoping for improvement that would follow a regular review at AFC but the original editor moved it back direct to the mainspace also nowhere in the references show subject's (important claims) like date of birth or number of children they have, where did the editor get them? That's WP: PROMOTIONAL, WP:COIEDIT and tries to use wikipedia as WP:SOAPBOX.

No any notable work listed show subject's importance, just a bunch of gossip blogs. Just a reminder, Misplaced Pages isn't a gossip blog/newspaper WP:NOTGOSSIP.

Refs: Only The Citizen is a reliable source, the rest are blogs that cannot be trusted on WP:BLP. ANU 01:26, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

As the editor of this article, I have made improvements by adding additional information from sources that I believe are credible. Please review it to see if it is satisfactory and help me by correcting any mistakes. 3L3V8D (talk) 20:55, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 02:13, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: As there is an unbolded Keep here, I don't think that a Soft Deletion is an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 04:53, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Beeblebrox 23:59, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Keely Shaye Smith

Keely Shaye Smith (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)

Notable mainly for being Pierce Brosnan's wife. However, notability is not inherited. All reliable references to her exist because she is Pierce Brosnan's wife.

Fails notability guideline WP:JOURNALIST --LK (talk) 09:45, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

  1. Novakovich, Lilana (August 21, 1989). "Food therapy for GH's Valerie". The Toronto Star – via newspapers.com.
  2. Slewinski, Christy (December 29, 1995). "Keely Shaye Smith turns her green thumb to gold". Chicago Tribune. ProQuest 291082310 – via newspapers.com.
  3. Fabian, Allison (January 1999). "Keely Shaye Smith putting her passion to work". New Woman. Vol. 29, no. 1. New York: Hearst Magazine Media, Inc. p. 13. ProQuest 206658619.
  4. Tschinkel, Arielle (August 5, 2024). "Who Is Pierce Brosnan's Wife? All About Keely Shaye Brosnan". People (magazine).

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:55, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to Happu Ki Ultan Paltan#Cast. Thanks to editors who worked to track down sources. In the end though, they were not strong enough to convince other editors to argue to Keep this article. Liz 01:34, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Kamna Pathak

AfDs for this article:
Kamna Pathak (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)

Looking at the sources, it does not pass WP:GNG even. Mostly all the sources available on google are discussing her replacement in a notable show, see , , . Taabii (talk) 13:31, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

  • The sources are quite poor and not independent of the subject with claims and interviews. Subject fails the criteria for WP:NACTOR who did not have significant roles in "multiple" notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions; or made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment. RangersRus (talk) 16:40, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep The sources are reliable, and the subject is well-researched with verifiable claims.
𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 04:06, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting for further discussion on the sources added. Keep !votes, kindly comment based on our P&Gs and after giving a detailed analysis of the sources based on those P&Gs with a clear rationale why the article should be kept, not mere statements saying the sources are good.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 19:09, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 00:21, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. A source assessment would be helpful here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 02:01, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Draftify‎. Admittedly, this is a result no one asked for. But while I see a pretty clear consensus for deletion, there's clearly some promise here, and I'll take BusterD up on their implied offer. Also, since he's 100 in 2025, we may be about to get some retrospective coverage that will help. asilvering (talk) 01:41, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Michael Beint

Michael Beint (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I don't see any significant coverage. Likely doesn't pass WP:NACTOR due to insignificant roles in films which are also difficult to verify due to the lack of reliable sources. Frost 15:45, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Step Sideways 23:21, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mojo Hand (talk) 01:28, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist as arguments are now evenly divided between editors arguing to Keep this article and those advocating Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 00:23, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

  • Delete. Not seeing subject having 1) significant roles in 2) multiple 3) notable productions, per WP:NACTOR. The source cited above is about Beint's marriage, with his body of work as a performance as an afterthought. Longhornsg (talk) 01:11, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
    The source I mentioned is merely and solely to source his personal life not to prove his notability. -Mushy Yank. 07:07, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete Despite his body of work, a search turned up no significant independent coverage. 💥Casualty 05:09, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete He is not WP:NOTABLE. Simply working as a journeyman actor, or even making a career out of it, does not merit a Wiki article. He fails to meet WP:GNG criteria and has few credible WP:RS citations either. Go4thProsper (talk) 17:09, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep: This is not just about a working actor; instead about a vast body of work of character roles in film and television, but mostly about an illustrious theater career as stage leads on West End and in the UK. The source linked above by Bearian (a reference volume about notable productions of plays by Shakespeare) discusses the subject's 1954 title role in Sir Thomas More, the next production it discusses is Ian McKellen's 1964 portrayal in the same role. This article in The Nation mentions the subject's appearance in a 1986 London Royal National Theater performance of Pravda (play) (by David Hare) opposite a young Anthony Hopkins in "the best performance of his career". (I'm presuming if you're co-starring with Hopkins onstage every night, you must be a respected actor.) This guy is not merely a working actor, he's been a working (and often leading) theater actor for over 60 years, doing his last television appearance in 2010. One more thing: this fellow will turn 100 years old in 2025, and he's worked with actors from Margaret Rutherford to Cate Blanchette. I suspect the reason he appeared in so many films and tv shows (135 different titles) is that his face and work was already so familiar in the British theater community (mostly from the National). I'm aware my "day late and dollar short" keep assertion may not impress, but I'll bet if I had access to more London theater reviews I'd find abundant direct detailing. If deleted, I may research a new draft. BusterD (talk) 10:29, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.


Proposed deletions

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


Categories


Categories: