Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Pakistan

Points of interest related to Pakistan on Wikipedia: Outline – History – Portal – Category – WikiProject – Alerts – Deletions – Cleanup – Stubs – Assessment – Style – To-do

Deletion Sorting Project
(talk) Project page Lists (by ABC) Lists (by topic) Lists (computer-readable) AfD: Today, Yesterday Delsort scripts
v t e

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Pakistan. 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 {{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.
2. You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Pakistan|~~~~}} 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 Pakistan. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.

Further information

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

This list is also part of the larger list of deletion debates related to Asia.

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

• WikiProject Deletion sorting/Pakistan/archive

• See also: Wikipedia:Notice board for Pakistan-related topics, Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Punjab

Brahuistan (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 page no have sources and this page just for fun,Brhaui peoples known as Baloch and Balochistani himself for that see Dr. Mahrang Baloch from langove tribe with Brahui ethnolinguistic and was Born in Mangocher of Kalat zone that in this article nominated for imaginary Brahuistan But she never said that she is from Brahuistan and never said Brahuistan is a region She also known her as a Baloch and Balochistani and never was a region with Brahuistan name in Khanate of Kalat documents Moshtank (talk) 18:58, 4 May 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 May 4. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:18, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography, Afghanistan, and Pakistan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:27, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep – A well sourced article from published works though it has a couple of citation needed tags. The nominator's claims "This page no have sources and this page just for fun" is in WP:POV fashion and their refer to Mahrang Baloch is completely irrelevant here for the nomination cause. It seems they have not done WP:BEFORE or may be (as a new user) they are not aware of it. MŠLQr (talk) 19:37, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge a little bit and redirect to Brahui people. There are mentions of it being a proposed name when the British took over and one or two sources claiming there's a movement to create it, but not much more than that. Far WP:TOOSOON for a standalone article. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:15, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep – This is a well sourced article from published works although it could be improved upon. Abstrakt (talk) 23:53, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kante pind (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Does this even exist? Is "Aalam Garh" a human or a location? It appears to be a location. Polygnotus (talk) 13:15, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is it کیت which is located here? Polygnotus (talk) 13:18, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It must be this, Google calls it "Kaint". Polygnotus (talk) 13:22, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:28, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:35, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct — it is Kaint (Urdu: کینت), but I will support its deletion in the absence of reliable sources. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 22:53, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: There are no reliable sources covering the location. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 22:58, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad Afzal Tariq (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)

Disputed draftificaiton (as evident by the cut-paste move) but I believe this to be wholly the work of AI based not just on the erroneous formatting but the sourcing as well. The sources don't lead to real pages, just what an AI might believe a URL might look like. Authored by what appears to be the subject's son, who plays no small role in the biography. Draftification rules would allow the draftification given the obvious COI but there's no need here; the subject is not notable. Delete. Bobby Cohn (talk) 13:41, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, and Pakistan. Bobby Cohn (talk) 13:42, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete cannot find anything indicating notability, or really anything at all. Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 21:37, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per mention above cannot find any references towards notability. Behappyyar (talk) 07:44, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Yes there appears to be undisclosed COI. Zakaria ښه راغلاست (talk) 23:46, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Murtaza Hussain (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)

Clearly fails WP:NATHLETE. Article created in 2007, no more WP:SIGCOV in 20 years that points to notability. Longhornsg (talk) 05:04, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sportspeople, Cricket, and Pakistan. Longhornsg (talk) 05:04, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or redirect to an appropriate list of players. Vestrian24Bio 11:27, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Vestrian24Bio, do you not think the sources added since the nomination demonstrate notability? We have a whole page dedicated to Hussain by the North-West Evening Mail (clearly SIGCOV). He represented Pakistan "A", so at some point was considered amongst the top 20 cricketers in Pakistan's most popular sport, and played for close to two decades. There will be sources in Urdu for someone who knows where/how to look. Jevansen (talk) 12:11, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SIGCOV - significant coverage which isn't just one whole newspaper page.

WP:NCRIC - "cricketers who have played at the highest domestic level or in the lower levels of international cricket", WP:OFFCRIC - only Pentangular Trophy in his time period in Pakistan. Vestrian24Bio 12:22, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jevansen: "at some point was considered amongst the top 20 cricketers in Pakistan's most popular sport" - any source for that claim?? Vestrian24Bio 12:23, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Vestrian24Bio: The WP:OFFCRIC guideline you linked lists the Pentangular Trophy under tournaments that have "first-class cricket status that the Cricket WikiProject deems (players to be) notable enough to presume coverage". He played in this tournament during the 1990s.[1]. In addition, Hussain played for Surrey in Div 1 of the 2007 County Championship, undisputedly the highest level. The basis of the top 20 claim is maths ... Pakistan "A" being the second eleven ... so top 22 by definition (I rounded down). Jevansen (talk) 12:41, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jevansen: not much of this is on the article, other than the infobox and lead, there's literally nothing on the article.

And so, the last part of your statement is WP:SYNTH as you've agreed yourself... Vestrian24Bio 15:40, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't need to be in the article. It needs to be in the sources. We do mention he competed for Surrey (all their players satisfy WP:OFFCRIC) and this is backed by citations. I merely mentioned the "top 20" to highlight the likelihood of Urdu sources existing. This hasn't been inserted in the article, which is when WP:SYNTH would apply. Jevansen (talk) 00:33, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, the full-page story found by Jevansen is clear SIGCOV. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:58, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Satisfies both WP:GNG and WP:NCRIC with sources added since nomination. Would welcome contribution of any Urdu speaker re further sourcing. Jevansen (talk) 00:33, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - the fact that we're discussing whether a cricketer with over 250 major cricketing appearances - let alone in English county cricket - is notable is genuinely saddening. Bobo. 00:38, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Agreed but sadly there seems to be a small element of editors who, rather than seeking to add to the knowledge provided in this online encyclopedia, are putting all their effort into trying to delete as much as they possibly can from it. They know all the acronyms as will as the miniature of rules and loopholes and commonsense has gone out the window. Shrug02 (talk) 13:18, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. A rather odd nomination. More than enough coverage. Use some common sense, please. AA (talk) 23:10, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Raina railway station (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)

Can't find anything about this railway station in Pakistan. I did find an article about a railway station that happens to be called "Raina", but it is located in West Bengal (India), not Pakistan.

And I'm not entirely sure if that article is even reliable.

(Edit: another article about the Indian railway station, still nothing for the Pakistan one though) ApexParagon (talk) 01:06, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Pakistan. Shellwood (talk) 01:11, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Stations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:00, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I can't find anything to satisfy WP:V. Jumpytoo Talk 05:58, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. The archived Pakistan Railways site at https://web.archive.org/web/20140224124331/http://pakrail.com/ has a list of stations in alphabetical order, and when you scroll down to Raina, you see "Raina (Closed)". Google Maps shows a town or village named Raina in Pakistan. There is no Raina, Pakistan article, but perhaps there is in the Urdu Wikipedia. I don't see a railway line there, though. Perhaps there was a railway line and station there once. Perhaps there is more than one way to transliterate the Urdu name. LeapTorchGear (talk) 09:35, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2024 Mari Petroleum Mil Mi-8 crash (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 WP:NOTNEWS and WP:EVENTCRIT. Per WP:GNG, "sources should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability". From what I've been able to find, none of the sources were secondary since none of them contained analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the event itself. The event does not have in-depth nor sustained continued coverage of the event itself with coverage only briefly occurring in the aftermath of the accident. WP:EVENTCRIT#4 states that routine kinds of news events including most accidents – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance, which this event lacks. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 06:56, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Aviation, Transportation, and Pakistan. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 06:56, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Wikipedia is not a collection of WP:News articles. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 22:51, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad Shafi (cyclist) (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 have limited knowledge about the notability criteria for sportspersons. That being said, the subject does not appear notable to me. How is merely participating in an Olympic event sufficient for notability, especially when there are over 5,000 participants?–𝐎𝐰𝐚𝐢𝐬 𝐀𝐥 𝐐𝐚𝐫𝐧𝐢 ʕʘ̅͜ʘ̅ʔ 02:34, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sportspeople, and Pakistan. –𝐎𝐰𝐚𝐢𝐬 𝐀𝐥 𝐐𝐚𝐫𝐧𝐢 ʕʘ̅͜ʘ̅ʔ 02:34, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Cycling and Olympics. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:31, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - The nomination has it quite right: simply competing at the Olympics does not indicate novelty. No IRS SIGCOV found in my WP:BEFORE. FOARP (talk) 17:07, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Cycling at the 1964 Summer Olympics – Men's team pursuit as a valid ATD for individuals who have participated in the Olympics. --Enos733 (talk) 02:51, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Pakistan at the 1964 Summer Olympics#Cycling – Since in similar AfDs priority was given to redirecting to the country's campaign rather than the event. Svartner (talk) 04:19, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Pakistan at the 1964 Summer Olympics#Cycling: I couldn't find any WP:SIGCOV for the WP:GNG to be met here. Redirect as a WP:ATD. Let'srun (talk) 21:22, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Babarloi Dharna (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)

Article is not providing the significant coverage. According to chatgpt.zero, 98% of article has been created from Artificial Intelligence. The protests details also provided in the Controversial canals project on Indus River's political developments section. Article also fails to pass the WP:GNG and also edited by only two users. Some text excerpted from Controversial canals project on Indus River and there is no sense to keep the article stand alone. Misopatam (talk) 17:42, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Environment, and Pakistan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:14, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep While there may be concerns about AI involvement, Wikipedia's policies do not forbid using AI-generated text as long as the content complies with Wikipedia’s core content policies — especially verifiability, neutrality, and no original research. The subject of this article has been sourced from the reliable sources and doesn't fail WP:GNG. Meanwhile, some of the portion may be covered under the Controversial canals project on Indus River, but the details specific to the protests are substantial enough to merit a standalone article.The article can be improved by human copy editing, rather than deleted completely. Content that overlaps can be trimmed or consolidated, but the existence of partial duplication is not a enough reason for deletion under WP:ContentFork or WP:SUMMARYSTYLE.If the article has capability, we prefer improving it, not deleting it. The topic is current and may attract more coverage over time and It serves readers seeking specific information, which may not be easily found elsewhere. Issues can be solved by cleanup, therefore I recommend improvement if necessary, not deletion. JogiAsad (talk) 19:08, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I suggest you to merge the article in the Controversial canals project on Indus River, in which you can create a separate section named Protests and can write the required text in own words with Reliable and independent sources. Thank you Misopatam (talk) 19:19, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I respectfully disagree with the suggestion to merge Babarloi Dharna into the "Controversial canals project on Indus River" article; because Babarloi Dharna is a specific protest or an event and significant enough on its own, meanwhile The Controversial canals project on Indus River is a larger, broader infrastructure project with multiple issues, possibly including protests. While the two topics are related, they are distinct: Babarloi Dharna is a notable, standalone protest movement that received significant and enough independent media coverage, (i.e news articles, reports, studies, etc.). It is not merely a minor part of the broader canals project, but a major event with its own political and social impact. So therefore it deserves its own Wikipedia article based on Wikipedia's notability guidelines (specially WP:GNG — general notability guideline) and Wikipedia’s notability guidelines (WP:N). Events with substantial coverage in reliable sources merit their own articles. Merging would diminish the independent significance of the Dharna.

  I argue that:

  • • The two topics are related, but not identical.
    • Babarloi Dharna is not merely a subtopic; it is a standalone notable event.WP:N
    • Merging would obscure the full coverage and importance of the Dharna, i.e. Sit-ins itself.
    • Controversial canals project on Indus River is a larger, broader infrastructure project with multiple issues, possibly including protests
    • Merging would downplay an important social movement or event that has independent significance. WP:NOTMERGE.

  JogiAsad (talk) 20:24, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and redirect to Cholistan Canal Project. Fails WP:NEVENT. Gheus (talk) 08:21, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Your merge suggestion isn't relevant to this article. I have elaborated above in details. And it doesn't fails WP:NEVENT. JogiAsad (talk) 18:48, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Article's title should be changed from Babarloi Dharna to Babarloi Sit-in because former title is not giving news results in search that is why it looks insignificant otherwise the protest has captured significant attention from notable news agencies. If the content of article is artificially generated than it can be easily rephrased or re-written. However, it should not be merged with Cholistan Canal Project as this article covers one the major political movements in the history of Pakistan. مھتاب احمد سنڌي (talk) 10:36, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  So why you have not fixed it or re write it. First improve the article than give the statement that now the problems have been fixed and than vote for the Keep. Misopatam (talk) 15:01, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Sure. مھتاب احمد سنڌي (talk) 18:26, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Done. I'm taking down your vote for now. Thank you Misopatam (talk) 19:42, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  cmt.Issues have been fixed, further you can also fix it.

  JogiAsad (talk) 19:25, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Controversial Canals on Indus River, or Cholistan Canal Project both articles are about the mega project (which has become controversial). It's important to pay attention to the details of a large infrastructure project that has sparked controversy. On the other hand, the article about the Babarloi Dharna/Sit-in highlights a different social and political movement, which covers a public protest against these proposed controversial canal projects.

Combining the protest article with the project-related articles would mix up the topic of dissent with how that dissent is expressed, which isn't right. Just like the Faizabad sit-in is significant enough to have its own article, the Babarloi Dharna / Sit-in article is about the movement against those controversial topics and deserves the same treatment as a standalone article.It is an important civic response, complete with its own timeline, dynamics, leaders, and political effects. For these reasons, the article about the Babarloi Dharna/Sit-in should have its own entry to keep the narrative clear and true to the essence of this protest movement. JogiAsad (talk) 19:01, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have tried to fix the issues, updated the article as per current status. See page revisions. JogiAsad (talk) 21:09, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Moed Ahmed (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)

Masscreated LUGSTUB with no credible assertion of notability under WP:NSPORTS. FOARP (talk) 10:40, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Cricket, and Pakistan. FOARP (talk) 10:40, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or redirect to an appropriate list of players if possible. Vestrian24Bio 07:37, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Do not propose a Merge or Redirection if you don't have a target article in mind.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:16, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - No significant coverage found in independent reliable sources. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:10, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: I can't find any coverage and there does not seem to be an appropriate redirect target. Please ping me if coverage is found. JTtheOG (talk) 19:50, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sahar Hashmi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

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