Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Dance

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

Adding a new AfD discussion

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

Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Dance|~~~~}} 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 Dance. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.

Further information

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

Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:

WikiProject Deletion sorting/Dance/archive

Purge page cache

watch

AFDs

Madi Monroe

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

This promotional article on an actress and social media "personality" (influencer) fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTRESS. While it seems that her TikTok is popular, popularity is not a guarantee of notability. A BEFORE search only finds social media posts, IMDb, user submitted content, and fluffy trivial coverage. There may be a COI present (which in itself is not a reason for deletion) as the editor who created it has a user name that is the same as the subject's mother's name (which is mentioned in the article.) That may be purely coincidental, however they also shot the photo used in the article which seems to indicate a connection. It seems to be WP:TOOSOON for this emerging actor. Netherzone (talk) 17:43, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, Internet, and California. Netherzone (talk) 17:43, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per argument above plus the only sources are from user-generated content so almost as bad or worse as citing other Wikipedia pages. Afonso Dimas Martins (talk) 18:49, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:BEFORE search finds no sources on her from generally reliable sources; the few articles on her are hardly enough to establish notability as of now. jolielover♥talk 18:58, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, too soon if this subject is actually prominent in the future. -Samoht27 (talk) 19:43, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I completely agree the subject doesn't meet WP:NACTRESS. The Sophocrat (talk) 23:22, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Dance. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:24, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 15:38, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It seems like this is a case of WP:TOOSOON. There seems to be a few RSes but a lot of sources being used that do not qualify as RSes. Once there are more sources supporting it, it should be included. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 16:29, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kat Mon Dieu

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

Fails WP:GNG. The only coverage I could find which was not a passing mention was in blogs, which clearly aren't reliable. Golem08 (talk) 15:37, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Dance. Golem08 (talk) 15:37, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:56, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This was the only RS I could find [1], this person is only briefly mentioned. That's about all there is. What's in the article now aren't RS. Oaktree b (talk) 01:36, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I won't vote, because she's friends of friends (and possibly a relative who is involved with her scene), but the sourcing doesn't seem significant. Bearian (talk) 08:03, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Shannon Durig

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

Doesn't seem to have enough sources with SIGCOV. I found this with sparse coverage, this with moderate coverage, and this. LastJabberwocky (talk) 09:31, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Theatre, United States of America, and Kansas. LastJabberwocky (talk) 09:31, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Bands and musicians, and Dance. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:47, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, there is a ton of coverage in the Kansas City Star, see [2], [3], [4]. I think that's one element of an ideal three to establish GNG. Will see if I can find dig up more. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:22, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The New York Daily News also published a two page spread upon her 1,000th performance. I'm still probably at a Weak delete, but maybe someone else will find a bit more coverage. Maybve there is a world where this could be redirected to the musical's article, but her name isn't really there in any substantial way right now. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:37, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 02:41, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Identified coverage meets WP:N policy requirements - significant coverage in multiple (two) reliable sources. ~Kvng (talk) 00:16, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The NYDN is an interview, so we really only have one independent, reliable source so far, imv. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 06:30, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article lacks sufficient sources, on the other hand, it needs to expand the mentioned page as well.110 and 135 (talk) 06:22, 6 May 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]
Keep: I see a pass of WP:NACTOR per Mushy Yank. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:07, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Further analysis of reliability of sourcing would be useful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Goldsztajn (talk) 10:58, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I see the passes of WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. 2 Lead and significant roles in notable television shows (Mann Mast Malang and Zulm). Misopatam (talk | contribs) 06:14, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Can you point out the coverage which is still required since WP:NACTOR is not a guideline for inherent notability?--CNMall41 (talk) 20:00, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Confirming that articles don't need to meet both WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. But NACTOR isn't a guarantee, especially if sourcing is thin. Any additional thoughts/sources?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 03:03, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]