This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related toActors and filmmakers. It is one of manydeletion lists coordinated byWikiProject 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 atWP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page atWP: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 theedit 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|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.
Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed bya 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{{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'sdeletion policy andWP: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:
Draftify The subject has appeared in several notable productions (Balika Vadhu,Naagin,OMG), suggesting a plausible path to notability, but current sourcing consists largely of routine entertainment coverage and lifestyle pieces from gossip outlets rather than the significant, in-depth coverage required byWP:GNG. Notability is not yet demonstrated perWP:NACTOR either. Moving to draftspace allows time for better sourcing to be found without the article remaining in mainspace in its current state.EasyWriter2 (talk)11:01, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This photographer, filmmaker and writer does not meet notability criteria perWP:GNG,WP:CREATIVE norWP:AUTHOR. The current sourcing presents only one reliable source (a review), the others are: a dead link to a personal blog that is a connected source; a link to his Vimeo channel; a dead link to a connected source (where he presented work); his partner's personal website; a dead link to a calendar listing; a link to a motorcycle blog that doesn't mention him. A before search did not find anything of use. There's an entry in en-Academia which is taken from Wikipedia, blogs, user-submitted content, calendar listings, and social media. Bringing it here for the community to decide.Netherzone (talk)15:51, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using{{source assess table}}.
Non notable actor with minor roles in non notable films and unsourced credits in multiple TV Shows, lack of SIGCOV in reliable sources. Failing GNG & NACTOR both.Zuck28 (talk)12:47, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails inWP:NACTOR as well as GNG. Roles aren't significant to pass NACTOR and except one TOI reference, all available sources are either interviews or TRIVIAL mentions; nothing that constitutes SIGCOV to meet GNG.BhikhariInformer (talk)11:02, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable model and fashion blogger, lack of reliable sources, failingWP:GNG, and she didn’t participate in any international event, failing toWp:NBEAUTY as not a qualifying pageant for a higher level competition. The midday article is a paid release with the tag of partnered content andWP:IBTIMES is also a paid release.Zuck28 (talk)09:37, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The Times of India[1] no information beyond announcing her win, the mid-dayarticle redirects to a piece not about her. As the nominator said, winning that pageant is not enough to presume notability, and it looks like we have nothing else.Kelob2678 (talk)15:45, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per DENY and BEFORE. He's been at least in supporting roles in many films, and a simple search has found many potential sources.Bearian (talk)23:40, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The subject does not meetWP:GNG. Most sources are paid, promotional, or non-independent, with some raising concerns underWP:NEWSORGINDIA. There is no significant independent coverage, and notability underWP:ANYBIO is not established. Therefore, the article fails Wikipedia’s notability standards.ButterflyCat (talk)23:31, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Very Good catch by the nominator. This article was created by a blocked sockUser:Achujabal, and involvement of other spammers and promo editors, and Ip addresses is also visible. Credits are probablyWP:FAKE, and are unsourced. Available sources are insufficient to meet GNG, and only talk about his one role as Bhavin inPandya Store.Wp:PEACOCK terms like "people strongly loved shabaaz for his character of neeraj rajawat in legendary show", indicate UPE/COI as well.Zuck28 (talk)05:57, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - a number of references do check out, and the accusation of "Wp:FAKE sources" appears unfounded. TheDainik Bhaskar,Nai Duniya andTimes of India references point to SIGCOV. The movie was banned inRajasthan, so seemingly notable enough to provoke govt reaction. --Soman (talk)23:55, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Fake ref no.1,2,3, and4.TOI article is not really independent, and Nai Dunia source is an unbylinedpress release. You can see all the fake references here inthis version. And please mention any policy or guideline which says getting banned in some part of a country is a sign of notability.Zuck28 (talk)05:23, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Most sources are fake.Times of India news is reliable as author name mentioned, but no other source found to establish notability of the film. --SatnaamIN (talk)03:27, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This article is excessively sourced to the individual'sPatreon.WP:BLPPRIMARY allows sources from the individual the article is about, but this definitely crosses a line. The individual is likely notable, but filtering out everything cited to inappropriate sources will likely require a completeWP:TNT. This may be one of the few cases where starting over from scratch is actually preferable to working with the mess that is already there.
Strong Keep I created this article and am shocked/sad to see it AfDed, as I put an enormous amount of work into not only researching and writing the article, but also ensuring that everything was appropriately sourced.
As you've noted yourself,WP:BLPPRIMARY allows primary sources. You say that the article's use of primary sources "definitely crosses a line", but I'm unaware of any policy that puts a hard limit (or even a suggested limit) on how many primary sources are allowed in an article. If there is such a policy, then please point me to it.
The article uses plenty of third-party sources as well. I'm aware that primary sources cannot confer notability, but I did a cursory glance just now and counted over 30 third-party sources currently used in the article. Not all of those provide significant coverage, but several of them do.
Unless I'm mistaken, over a third of all primary sources currently used in the article are contained within the "List of Small Beans podcast series" table. I cannot imagine anything controversial about using primary sources in a table of someone's body of work to simply verify the existence of each individual credit he worked on.
There are also many instances in which I used multiple primary sources for a single claim, when I probably could have just used one. In some instances, I think I did this so that I could cite exact release dates / announcement dates for various projects that Swaim worked on, but in a lot of instances, I think I was just being redundant. If need be, a lot of primary sources could probably be removed from the article without leaving anything unsourced.
I'm seeing that someone recently removed a ton of primary sources from the article and left lots of "citation needed" templates in their place, which seems totally unnecessary to me. Those sources should be restored, but again, in some instances, I may have been using several primary sources when just one or two could have sufficed. So while I really don't think there was much of an issue with how the article had been sourced when I wrote it, cutting down on the number of primary sources is absolutely an achievable goal without needing to delete content, much less needing to delete the entire article. --Jpcase (talk)02:58, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The guideline is proving the individual isnotable (WP:NPERSON), which PRIMARY sources cannot do. Sources toverify works the individual has been in are fine. The issue here is that each entry has two or three sources, which is unnecessary and constitutesWP:REFBOMBing. This article is so reliant on primary sources (at least 60), that it's drowning out the references that actually provenotability. Much of the article is also unsourced at present, which makes me question whether this individual is actually notable. Unfortunately, I am unable to perform that analysis as the article is head deep with unnecessary reference dumping. This is why I believeWP:TNT is absolutely necessary here.11WB (talk)12:00, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be clear here, your claim that only the table of works uses primary sources, is incorrect. Theearly life section, which should be where notability is shown from independent sources, is also filled with primary sources from Twitter and his podcast. Secondary sources that are used are unfortunately not reliable,WP:HUFFPOCON as one example, which explicitly states: 'HuffPost contributor articles should never be used for third-party claims about living persons.' It seems this was ignored.11WB (talk)12:06, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The guideline is proving the individual is notable (WP:NPERSON), which PRIMARY sources cannot do. - Yes. I acknowledged this in my comment. But there are over 30 third-party sources used in the article.
The issue here is that each entry has two or three sources - Right. Again, there are lots of instances in the article where I used quite a few primary sources for a single claim, when just one or a small handful would have sufficed. In most cases, I did this for no good reason. So like I said, lots of primary sources could be culled from the article without actually leaving any of the article unsourced.
Much of the article is also unsourced at present, which makes me question whether this individual is actually notable. - None of the article was unsourced until a few weeks ago, when someone mass deleted sources, claiming that primary sources are "not reliable", even though as we both know, primary source are allowed. I can appreciate the point of view that the article should cut down on its number of primary sources, but that does not mean all or even most primary sources need to be removed.
which makes me question whether this individual is actually notable. - Again, the article is using over 30 third-party sources, which establishes notability. No number of primary sources counteracts that notability.
Unfortunately, I am unable to perform that analysis as the article is head deep with unnecessary reference dumping. - I'm semi-retired from Wikipedia these days and am not looking to get drawn into any long projects here, but I wish an effort to contact me had been made prior to mass deletion of content from the article / opening an AfD, so that a discussion about all of this could occurred from the start.
Just to be clear here, your claim that only the table of works uses primary sources, is incorrect. - I did not claim that "only the table uses primary sources". I claimed that "over a third of all primary sources currently used in the article are contained within [the table]".
Secondary sources that are used are unfortunately not reliable, WP:HUFFPOCON as one example - That source is an interview with Swaim so could still be acceptable as a primary source. That's a fair point that it does not confer notability, but it is just one of many third-party sources currently used in the article.Jpcase (talk)15:31, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Due to you enforcingWP:OWN, I am not willing to engage in any further discussions on this. You have reverted every editors attempt to improve the article, meaning only your version of the article has remained.11WB (talk)15:39, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I made a single edit restoring the article to itsstable version and have merely asked that we allow a full discussion to occur before making mass changes to the article. That is notWP:OWN. Please review the following sections ofWP:OWN:
Even though editors can never "own" an article, it is important to respect the work and ideas of your fellow contributors. Therefore, be cautious when removing or rewriting large amounts of content, particularly if this content was written by one editor; it is more effective to try to work with the editor than against them—even if you think they are acting as if they "own" the article.
Where disagreement persists after such a reversion, the editor proposing the change should first take the matter to the talk page, without personal comments or accusations of ownership. --Jpcase (talk)16:09, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This is going nowhere. The version of the article you are trying to keep up, as I alreadysaid here, violates multiple BLP guidelines. By reverting the article to a bloated refbombed version from July 2024, you have undone edits from multiple editors. I cannot reasonably engage with an editor who won't allow others to contribute to an article.11WB (talk)16:33, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I'm genuinely open to a conversation about any ways in which the article may have violated policy, but I've asked you to point to a specific section ofWP:BLP that the article violated and you've yet to do so.
I've provided several reasons for why I believe that the article's use of primary sources is in accordance with Wikipedia policy and instead of addressing any concerns that you may have with my rationale, you've simply accused me of ownership and refused to engage with me.
I am not insisting on no changes to the article. As I've said a few times now, I'm open to reworking how the article uses sources and even cutting down on some sections of the article that may be unnecessarily detailed. But I don't think that mass changes to the content of the article are needed, and so I'm simply requesting that we keep the article stable, as it had existed for the past several years, before locking in any major changes. --Jpcase (talk)17:00, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Your version of the article violatesWP:BLPPRIMARY as entire sections only cite primary sources. The article has beenWP:REFBOMBed with Patreon, Twitter andWP:BLOGGER sources. My attempts at removing all unsuitable sources have been undone, and it is clear you are set on keeping the article in a specific revision, despite the numerous issues that have been brought to attention by multiple editors.11WB (talk)17:13, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I am not going to keep repeating myself here, as that would risk me being accused ofWP:BLUDGEONING. I've made clear which guidelines have been violated multiple times already. This point needs to be understood: the primary sources currently drown out anything that actually proveWP:NPERSON has been met. As a result,WP:TNT remains the only effective method of actually creating a decent article.11WB (talk)17:17, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Can you quote the specific part ofWP:BLPPRIMARY that says entire sections of an article cannot be cited with only primary sources? If your point is that you personally think entire sections of articles should not be cited only with primary sources, then that's fair enough. But I'm not seeing any policy about this. --Jpcase (talk)17:20, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
You aren't understanding, BLPPRIMARY may allow it. ButWP:NBASIC does not. The ridiculous number of primary sources has dunked any potential case for notability in deep water. I appreciate you are an older editor, but I am starting to become exasperated at having to explain this over and over, in different ways. I have made my point. Please can we let other editors come to their own conclusions now? Thank you.11WB (talk)17:27, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
If you think it's best that we stop our back and forth, then sure, I'll try to engage a bit less. We clearly have very different understandings of Wikipedia policy and probably aren't going to change each other's minds. I do want to note that I'm not seeing anything inWP:NBASIC either about this. If you're able to quote a specific part of that policy, then I mean it sincerely when I say that I'm open to the possibility that I've overlooked something. If there isn't a specific policy you can directly quote to explain how the article's use of primary sources was improper, then I hope you can at least appreciate why we have different views about this. --Jpcase (talk)18:01, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I am unable to determine notability due to the ocean of primary sources in the article. I've already said whilst primary sources are fine, to this extent, I feel that BLPPRIMARY has been violated, which states clearly in its header: 'Avoid misuse of primary sources'.WP:BLPSELFPUB states 'There are living persons who publish material about themselves, such as through press releases or personal websites. Such material may be used as a source only if: the article is not based primarily on such sources.' Which in this article, that is clearly the case.11WB (talk)18:58, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I am unable to determine notability due to the ocean of primary sources in the article. - Overuse of primary sources does not cancel out notability demonstrated by third-party sources. Lower down in this conversation, I've highlighted eight third-party sources that I believe establish notability. Your point that the article was overusing primary sources is a perfectly reasonable one, and I've said that I'm open to cutting down significantly the number of primary sources used in the article. But that's a separate matter from questions of notability.
I feel that BLPPRIMARY has been violated, which states clearly in its header: 'Avoid misuse of primary sources'. -WP:BLPPRIMARY then goes on to provide specific examples of what it means by "misuse". Those examples are entirely centered on privacy concerns. The policy is essentially urging people not to use primary sources to dox private information about an article subject. The policy does not say anything about there being a quantitative amount of primary sources that should not be used in an article.
WP:BLPSELFPUB states 'There are living persons who publish material about themselves, such as through press releases or personal websites. Such material may be used as a source only if: the article is not based primarily on such sources.' - This is a perfectly valid point. And this is why I've been saying that I'd try to cut down significantly on the number of primary sources used in the article. But I maintain that this could probably be achieved by simply removing redundant sources in areas where I've used more sources than necessary. I'll have to look more closely through the article in the coming days and see just how feasible that will be. But I feel pretty good about being able to rework how the article is sourced without sacrificing much actual content in the article.
I once again feel the need to mentionWP:OWN here. You are speaking in a way that makes it sound like only you are permitted to make these much needed changes to the article. (My responses may be intermittent as it appears Wikipedia is having some server problems currently.)11WB (talk)20:12, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I would again like to point you to the part ofWP:OWN that states, "Even though editors can never "own" an article, it is important to respect the work and ideas of your fellow contributors. Therefore, be cautious when removing or rewriting large amounts of content, particularly if this content was written by one editor; it is more effective to try to work with the editor than against them—even if you think they are acting as if they "own" the article."
I'm sorry that I reverted your edits, but you were making mass deletions of content from the article without first allowing discussion to unfold, even after I had voiced my concerns, which is itself a failure on your part to comply with WP:OWN.
Of course other people are allowed to edit the article, I'm not trying to bar others from getting involved. I'm just asking that more caution be excersized before "removing or rewriting large amounts of content".
The two of us are probably not going to completely agree on what an ideal version of the article should look like. But I'd love the chance to work on the article myself to see if I can address some of the main concerns. I believe that I can cut down on a lot of the primary sources without having to delete tons of content from the article. I'm just suggesting that we look for a medium path between the version of the article I had initially written and the major changes you were making.Jpcase (talk)20:48, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I apologise if I have come across short-tempered in this discussion. My ability to edit and communicate (on one of the days I have free) has been affected by server issues on Wikipedia's end, which is quite infuriating! That aside, each of our interpretations of OWN put the other at fault, so I think we've hit a stalemate there.WP:AfD is not cleanup, so for now, we should both see what the community at large thinks, rather than to-and-fro here, which is likely to end up going nowhere fast. An ideal and policy compliant version of the article would have no primary sources at all. This is the version I would aim for.11WB (talk)21:08, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I have done my best attempt at clearing up the article, removing the large amount of reference dumping that the article was drowning in. Much of the information was also unverified, which is not acceptable for a BLP. This is far from aWP:HEY, and I still believe the article would benefit from being rebuilt from scratch due to how poor the current state of it is and was. However, it is definitely in an improved state now.11WB (talk)13:15, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The creator of the article has unfortunatelyreverted good faith attempts to improve the article, by reverting it to a mucholder revision from July 2024. This editorinstructed me on my talk page not to make changes to the article whilst this AfD is open. This includesWP:HEY attempts. This is of course not very fair, and asnoted here by the editor, 'I do feel protective of the article, as I put a ton of work into it',WP:OWN is unfortunately preventing the article from being reasonably improved. I ask participants to make judgements based on notability alone, and whether it is possible to salvage any potential notability from this article for a new article. At this time, I don't believe any headway can be made on the current article, as the author has made clear that attempts at improvement will be reverted. Thanks!11WB (talk)16:11, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I'll readily admit that the way I sourced the article was overkill. Using too many sources is a bad habit of mine, haha. And I'm very open to a conversation about cutting down on the number of sources in the article. But I'm sad that no attempt at such a conversation was made prior to the mass deletion of content from the article . --Jpcase (talk)16:43, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
'But I'm sad that no attempt at such a conversation was made prior to the mass deletion of content from the article.' - This is not the case. They could have responded toTalk:Michael Swaim#Unreliable sources, which has been there since 28 January, however chose not to engage.11WB (talk)16:46, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I'm largely retired from Wikipedia and so did not see that conversation until yesterday, when I was notified on my talk page of this AfD. No one was obligated to notify me of the concerns that had been raised onTalk:Michael Swaim prior to the Afd, but as the creator of - and nearly the sole contributor to - the article, it would have been nice had I been given a heads up. I'm not saying anyone did anything wrong in editing the article without contacting me. But you noted in your own AfD nomination of the article that the subject is likely notable, so I just wish you had contacted me before moving forward with the Afd. --Jpcase (talk)17:15, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for picking out those sources @Jpcase. I will say that they are abit thin for establishing notability -Sign on San Diego looks fine, butMTV andPBS SoCal are more interview than not, and interviews don't tend to contribute to demonstrating notability. That said, I think that there is probably a case forWP:NCREATIVEThe person has ... played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews for the subject's work on Cracked.com and Small Beans. The question here, for me at least, is whether the reviews have that work as the primary subject - unfortunately the ones you have highlighted, and others that I have looked at are "best of..." type articles which are less compelling. I am still on the fence, but will keep looking. Cheers,SunloungerFrog (talk)06:52, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
SunloungerFrog Thanks for your thoughts. It's been awhile since I last got deeply involved with an AFD, and I can't say I can recall any rule against using interviews to establish notability. Could you point out the specific policy saying this?WP:GNG does not seem to place any restrictions on using interviews.
With regards to the "best of..." articles - even thoughWP:NCREATIVE uses the term "primary subject", I do think it's worth noting this statement fromWP:SIGCOV -Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. I would certainly say that the "best of..." articles provide more than a trivial mention of Swaim and his work, even if he is not the primary subject of those articles.
I also want to highlight this part ofWP:NCREATIVE -The person's work (or works) has...(c) won significant critical attention. The "best of..." articles establish this, as do the Streamy and Webby awards that Swaim's work has won (I have not seen any third-party sources providing significant coverage about Swaim winning the Webby Award, but the award itself is considered notable, and the article does include appropriate primary sources demonstrating that he won the award).
With regards to the Streamy Award, it is discussed somewhat extensively in this interview with Swaim fromAuxiliary Magazine[10], which is another source providing what I believe to be significant coverage of Swaim himself (I overlooked it when highlighting the aforementioned sources). Again, it's an interview, so I'm not exactly sure what your thoughts are on using it to establish notability; also, whileAuxiliary does seem to be by all measures a professionally published magazine, it doesn't seem to be an especially well-known publication. Should be okay for helping to establish notability in my opinion, but some might feel differently.
In my initial response, I was only highlighting the sources that immediately jumped out at me, since you had asked for only three examples - but here are some additional examples:
Bleeding Cool[11] (Swaim is not personally the primary subject, but his work is, and he personally receives several mentions).
Effingham Daily News[12] (This is a local newspaper, and Swaim is only briefly mentioned, but the article's primary subject is a feature film that Swaim co-wrote and starred in)
Vulture[13] andAV Club[14] Two additional "best of" articles that I overlooked earlier. Each is about a podcast separate from Swaim's work with Small Beans, demonstrating that Swaim has been responsible for multiple acclaimed works throughout his career
Tosh.0[15] - another brief "best of" mention. One of Swaim's early-career video sketches was featured on Comedy Central as the "winner" ofTosh.0's best internet video of the week segment. It's a very brief segment and doesn't even mention Swaim by name, but it further demonstrates how Swaim's work has received critical acclaim from numerous sources throughout many different stages of his career.
Attack of the Show![16] - a more in-depth "best of" mention than theTosh.0 segment. This one is from theG4 seriesAttack of the Show!
I'm certain @SF knows this, but the interview question is easy to answer. They count as primary sources as they are with the subject of the article, and thus do not count towards notability.11WB (talk)17:14, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I could be wrong about this, but I believe that the MTV article, despite containing "Interview" in the title, would be considered a secondary source - rather than posting an interview transcript, it simply quotes from an interview the author conducted with Swaim while reporting on Swaim in the third-person. It is still essentially an interview I suppose, but it is the reporter's independent account of that interview. --Jpcase (talk)18:00, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@SunloungerFrog, I just had a look at theSignOnSandDiego.com article and I notice it contains quotes from both Swaim and Epperson. Whilst it isn't an interview, I still wouldn't consider this enough to demonstrate notability, and definitely not an entire article. The other links provided by @Jpcase, such as the one fromPaste, seem to only beWP:TRIVIALMENTIONS. Unfortunately, I am not seeing notability here.
CREATIVE is a pretty easy one to cite, but he fails to meet this in my view. Swaim hasn't been cited by important figures and is not widely cited, so fails point 1. He is a podcaster, which is not a new concept, so doesn't meet point 2. I don't know if his works are considered that well known, point 3 is questionable. Point 4 is definitely not met. If there is a Small Beans monument I am not aware of, please do let me know.11WB (talk)20:44, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Surely your position isn't that the inclusion of any quotes by the subject of a news article makes that entire article a primary source...can you clarify why you feel that the inclusion of quotes in theSignOnSandDiego article would be a problem?
WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS defines "trivial mentions" as passing references to a subject while focusing on something else. The discussion of Swaim / Swaim's work receives far more than a passing mention in thePaste source, as well as in the other sources I've shared. If an article said something like, "2021 was a big year for gaming podcasts. Popular releases this year include shows like1Upsmanship, hosted by Michael Swaim..." and then proceeded to never mention Swaim or his work again for the duration of the article, thenthat would be a trivial mention in keeping with how trivial mentions are defined by the essay you yourself linked. Devoting multiple paragraphs solely focused on Swaim and his work (as is done in the sources I've provideed) is clearly not a trivial mention.
Point 4 of CREATIVE includes several possible criteria beyond just "monuments". You singled out one of the criteria that he obviously doesn't meet, but you completely disregarded the fact that Swaimdoes meet criteria c (won significant critical attention). I already explained how he meets this criteria in my earlier reply. If you disagree that winning multiple well-known awards in his field and featuring on about a half-dozen "best of" lists by major publications should be considered examples of "significant critical attention", then we'll just have to agree to disagree on that. But why you would single out a criteria that I never claimed he met while disregarding the criteria I did highlight is genuinely confusing to me.Jpcase (talk)21:43, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. I was glad that we were able to leave things on a friendly note yesterday over at your talk page, and I really don't think that either of us wants to continue getting into this back and forth. I was responding to someone else who had asked me a question. If you're going to continue commenting here, then I'll continue responding, but I assume we will wind up accomplishing little more than going around in circles and probably stressing each other out. --Jpcase (talk)21:43, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
We have moved on from discussing the abundance of primary sources to whether or not Swaim is notable at all. The discussion has been pretty lengthy, but I don't think it's fair to say I can't give my opinion... FOC generally prohibits commenting on editor conduct here, but I am concerned that you seem to want to only allow yourself to respond here, along with only allowing edits from yourself to the article. You're clearly a established editor on Wikipedia, so this is a bit worrying. There has only been participation from one other editor who has yet to state their position as a formal !vote. I suggest we take a short pause on discussions, so that this AfD doesn't become long to the point of being inaccessible to any potential closers.11WB (talk)22:44, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I have no problem with you continuing to add comments here. My point was that the two of us had spent all day yesterday going back and forth with each other, and it feels unlikely that we will change each other's minds. So continuing to respond to each other feels like a potential waste of time for both of us, which is a sentiment that you yourself had also previously expressed. But I never said that you can't keep commenting. Please look back on what I actually said - I said that if you do decide to keep commenting, then I will continue to respond, which will likely result in the two of us going around in circles. That's it. That's all I said. If you want to keep going in circles with me, then we can keep spinning around together. :)
You've commented on my conduct a few times now in ways that have felt overly personal. I have had some concerns at times with your conduct in this conversation as well but amassuming good faith and would kindly ask that you extend me the same courtesy. Like I said on your talk page yesterday, I'm going through an enormous amount of stress right now IRL and so if I've come across as frustrated in any of my responses to you, I'm sorry for that - the frustration is not directed at you personally.
This is an article that I really do care about a lot, and I feel very strongly that the article is policy compliant - so I am going to push back strongly on any criticisms of the article, if I feel that those criticisms are unfair. You've raised a few criticisms of the article that I feelare fair, and I've been trying to work with you on a potential solution - even though it's pretty clear that we are not going to completely agree on what that solution should look like, I'm genuinely trying to rework the article into something that will be at least closer to what you want it to look like. --Jpcase (talk)00:01, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I don't get into editing disputes with people on articles I don't have a personal investment in. This is not an article I have much interest in, so once this AfD is closed, I will move on. My attempts at clearing the article up (which I spent about an hour on) have been undone, so I am not going to waste time discussing what should or should not be in the article. Where this is no net positive, there is no logical reason to invest more time into it. This discussion has led to no meaningful outcome that I am honestly half-tempted just to withdraw the nomination entirely at this point and walk away.11WB (talk)00:21, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Poorly sourced BLP, with primary, unreliable sources, and dead URLs. Awards are mentioned but they are not notable enough to pass ANYBIO. And his work in films also falls short to meetWp:CREATIVE.Zuck28 (talk)21:05, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The article does not demonstrate significant coverage in multiple independent, reliable secondary sources. Most references are related to shows or project announcements and do not provide in-depth biographical coverage of the subject. There is insufficient independent sourcing to verify notability perWP:BLP andWP:GNG. Therefore, the article does not meet Wikipedia’s notability standards.ButterflyCat (talk)20:28, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
There is no sense for Speedy Keep..I have cross-checked the sources...The sources is reliable but not provide significant independent coverage required underWP:GNG and BLP verification. Several references are routine announcements or interviews, and some links are no longer accessible. There is no substantial in-depth secondary coverage establishing notability. Merely listing roles does not satisfyWP:NENT orWP:CREATIVE. Notability has not been demonstrated.ButterflyCat (talk)21:23, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete The creator of the articleUser:Ravi Verma KMP is a wiki spammer and promo editor. He decisively added multiple fake credits along withwp:FAKE references to Araun Nagar. They also added too much spam andWP:FAKEREF onGurjar Aandolanand targeted multiple lesser-known films and added fake credits for Aarun Nagar and others.
WP:BLP of an actress and cartoonist (and claimed but not substantiated musician), notproperly referenced as having any strong claim to passing inclusion criteria for actors or artists or musicians. As always, people are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because their work exists, and have to be shown to pass certain specific notability criteria supported byWP:GNG-worthy third party coverage about them in reliable sources. But this is referencedentirely toprimary sources that are not support for notability: her ownself-published posts to X-Twitter and Bluesky, her own website, and twointerviews in which she's speaking about herself in the first person. There's not evenone source being cited here that represents GNG-worthy third-party coverage or analysis about her, let alone theseveral such sources it would take to pass GNG -- and it doesn't sayanything about her that would be "inherently" notable enough to exempt her from needing much better sourcing than this.Bearcat (talk)19:25, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The Beat is the only RS now in the article per Cite Highlighter, and that's all I can find. Very little to no sourcing. Lack of coverage in RS.Oaktree b (talk)19:57, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Similar to the first deletion discussion, I believe the article has seriousWP:SIGCOV concerns and does not passWP:THREE. I tentatively approved the article as part of the NPR process last month after outlining my concerns atTalk:Michael Kovach#SIGCOV concerns as I believed the amount of active editors of the page could fix this issue, but after multiple weeks, the article still remains with only one good citation meeting WP:THREE. Especially for a living person bio, I believe the article should again be redirected toList of Hazbin Hotel and Helluva Boss characters#Hazbin Hotel.Johnson52417:23, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If sources don't exist that significantly cover a subject in any meaningful way, thenSNGs be damned. Even the policy regarding SNG's state that if sources don't exist on a subject then they may not warrant an article anyways. From WP:SNG itself: "Therefore, topics which pass an SNG are presumed to merit an article, though articles which pass an SNG or the GNG may still be deleted or merged into another article, especially if adequate sourcing or significant coverage cannot be found, or if the topic is not suitable for an encyclopedia".Sources and significant coverage are always required. Either way, I would hardly call the works he's been involved in significant enough to make him notable under ENT. They're only popular within niche online sub-communities associated with indie animation. Very few people outside of those circles would be able to recognize those roles.λNegativeMP118:50, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ENT says nothing about significance, only notability. And "only popular within niche online sub-communities associated with indie animation" is an odd thing to say about at least one very popular and successful show...--Eldomtom2 (talk)22:54, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
You are free to disagree with what I said, but it does not take away from my central argument (significant coverage still being required).λNegativeMP101:15, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
PerWP:G4, Fails multiple times through previous AfDs due to lack of notability and no significant improvement so far. The article lacks secondary independent sources. In my research I found some primary sources in Times of India, which is not completely reliable as perWP:TIMESOFINDIAAlphaCoretalk14:16, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – The subject is a notable former child actor who meets the General Notability Guideline (WP:GNG) and WP:ENTERTAINER. He played a "significant role" (WP:Significant role) in the blockbuster filmVivah (2006) and a lead role inToonpur Ka Superrhero (2010), for which he received specific critical praise (e.g., Komal Nahta in Koimoi).
More importantly, his career has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that goes beyond routine cast listings:
The Times of India (2018): A dedicated feature interview discussing his strategic career hiatus advised by Anupam Kher/Sooraj Barjatya.
The New Indian Express (2008): An analysis of his status as the "Surf Excel Star" and the cultural impact of that campaign.
The Times of India (2012): Coverage of his transition from acting to software engineering.
I have updated the article to include these high-quality citations and removed unverified content. The subject clearly passes the threshold for inclusion as a notable actor with a documented career arc.~2026-96888-2 (talk)14:42, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable child actor, not notable in adulthood, butapparently paying for an article to be written about him. Article waspreviously deleted. Minor media coverage about an advertising campaign and no longer being an actor don't satisfyWP:SIGCOV orWP:GNG.
"'''Keep''' – I have completely rewritten the article. It now includes multiple significant sources (Times of India, New Indian Express) that verify his career impact and his strategic transition to software engineering. I have also added his published research paper to verify his current profession. The article now meets WP:GNG and WP:BIO."Latishk1306 (talk)03:23, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – I have completely rewritten the article to address the notability concerns. I have added significant secondary coverage including a feature interview inThe Times of India (2018) detailing his career strategy, an analysis of his advertising impact inThe New Indian Express (2008), and a critical review of his performance inKoimoi. I have also verified his transition to a software engineering career with a citation to his published research paper (IC-ICN 2020). The article now clearly meets WP:GNG and WP:ENTERTAINER.— Precedingunsigned comment added byLatishk1306 (talk •contribs)11:27, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, in the strongest possible terms, regardless of any improvements. New Delhi is literally usingthis – poorly sourced, paid editing of BLPs – as an excuse to censor us, so much so thatI can't even link to articles about the court cases.Are you trying to mess with us?!Bearian (talk)16:57, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - too soon for this young actress. We can't even verify her age. We need to be very careful with Indian BLPs due to recent litigation and the risk that we bear.Bearian (talk)21:49, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure if the subject is notable. Sources fall short to meet SIGCOV & GNG. 1 Award, which is also non-notable, and no significant work is evident. Looks like a complete failure ofWp:ANYBIO. But I want to understand how it survived for 10 years.Zuck28 (talk)20:38, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Given the close to 20 sources on the page, I think this discussion would benefit from a source assessment table to verify whether that many sources fall short of notability. --Lenny Marks (talk)20:46, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sources 4 and 9 are non-RS, per Cite Highlighter. 2 is, but it's a brief mention that doesn't support notability. The rest are not indexed, most appear non-RS per my spot-check. I really don't see anything else we can use for notability.[18] appears to have many collaborations with others.Oaktree b (talk)14:50, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The article includes significant, reliable secondary sources that establish notability and verify verifiability. Therefore, it meetsWP:MUSICBIO guideline.
Additionally, I am concerned that the nomination pattern, because the nominator submitted two articles created by me for AfD within a three-minute interval. This suggests a possible pattern of targeted nominations.The article contains multiple references from reliable secondary sources. Furthermore, the nominator have applied the categoryWP:NACTOR, which may not be appropriate. The subject of this article is a singer and there is no mention or claim that the subject is an actor. Therefore, applying the actor specific notability guideline seems incorrect. For these reasons, I believe the article should be kept.— Precedingunsigned comment added byEndrabcwizart (talk •contribs)10:03, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I do not find any clear evidence that the award mentioned in the article is not notable. The nomination states that “the award is not notable,” but no specific reasoning or policy based explanation has been provided. I kindly request the nominator to clearly explain, with supporting policy references, why the award fails to meet notability standards.Article contains some independent, reliable secondary sources that contribute to establishing notability. Based on these sources, the article appears to meet Wikipedia’s notability and verifiability requirements.For these reasons, I believe the article should be kept.
Additionally, I would like to note that the nominator submitted two articles created by me for AfD within a three-minute interval. If the nominator has specific evidence or concerns regarding the independence of the sources or the notability of the award, I encourage them to present, this will more helpful and vaulable asset for me, for my future contibutionEndrabcwizart (talk)10:22, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Wp:MILL film producer, the acting roles are insufficient to meetWp:ENT. Lacks independent media coverage to pass GNG. Only independent coverage is about the money laundering case, which doesn't warrant a standalone article.Zuck28 (talk)14:56, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: NACTOR is a clear failure since none of her roles are significant. But, the Tribune India reference (2nd reference in the article) has SIGCOV. I found this one with SIGCOV -[19]. If anyone can find another source, then maybe we would be able to save the article per GNG withWP:THREE sources. But here's a thing - the two handy sources till now aren't bylined though.BhikhariInformer (talk)17:54, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn’t comment on Tribune but Ibtimes article that you found is evidently a paid PR article, please refer to the writing style, tone, and words. Also, the IBTimes regularly posts press releases and promotional articles by the samedesk.Zuck28 (talk)18:18, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Merely having an article on Wikipedia doesn't mean the subject is notable; here, the concern is significant coverage in independent sources, possibly including the films' articles, which may also be missing.Zuck28 (talk)20:05, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The three movies you see in blue are not evidently notable. Yes, they have an article, but their notability is not established. If you suggest, I can nominate them too.Zuck28 (talk)07:10, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like an IP convenientlyadded Roshan Shanavas to the lead section of the article but on IMDb he is listed at the last in thetop cast. The Aavesham review which you have cited mentions him only once, whereas the lead actors or the ones who played significant roles have been mentioned multiple times and the same goes for Painkili and Nellikkampoyil Night Riders's reviews as well
I am the person who voted keep above but no, I didn’t add the name of that actor in the intro of the articles and no, I didn’t even read those articles, if you assumed I had been fooled by some allegedly misleading lead sections. The person(s) who did it were/was indeed right. Because yes, again, anyone reading the links I mentioned and other reviews can easily understand those three roles aresignificant. The reviews mention his performances (in general positively but that does not matter). He’s on the poster of at least one film, in various photos in the articles and clearly presented as playing a significant (lead or main) role...IMdB, really? That was yourBEFORE? That’s why...Rather read the reviews.
Examples, again, one for each of the three roles:
”Meanwhile, Roshan Shanavas shines as Paachan, effortlessly eliciting humour through subtle glances, body language and dialogue delivery.”
”In fact, a large part of the runtime, especially in the beginning, is dedicated to Mithun Jai Sankar, Hipster and Roshan Shanavas and their characters Bibi, Aju and Shanthan respectively, with Sankar and Hipster probably getting the better character arcs of the three, relegating Shanavas to the comic relief for the most part”
Plenty of other reviews, all in reliable media outlets, offer more. Inviting you to withdraw. Your BEFORE was clearly not sufficient and your rationale is flawed, sorry.~2026-15473-1 (talk)11:17, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
You are citing multiple Wikipedia guidelines, but there’s no guideline that says appearing on a poster makes it a significant role. A passing mention in an approximately 1000 word review doesn’t establish an actor’s notability. Also, Asian Movie Pulse isn’t a reliable source here and likely falls under WP:SPS.Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk)11:32, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Asian Movie Pulse is generally considered very reliable and cited in various Good Articles but you have so many other reviews mentioning him and his performances at your disposal and not only with photographs, that I am now seriously starting to think that this is a waste of my time. Other users will say what they think, hopefully and decide (not difficult with a minimal effort and good faith) whether those 3 roles are significant or not.~2026-15473-1 (talk)12:12, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meetWP:NACTOR. The substantive discussion is above. What keep voters are relying on isThe person has had significant roles in multiple notable films but although we have evidence of roles in a few notable films (notability of the films being based on a proxy of having wikipedia articles), that term "significant roles" is doing some heavy lifting. In any case NACTOR does not create a presumption of automatic notability for an article. What the additional criteria section actually says, in the first paragraph, isPeople are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards. Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included. What matters here are the sources, and what we have here are very poor sources, which did not provide any significant coverage. BLP articles are written from secondary sources, and despite the relist, we don't have the sources from which an article can be written.Sirfurboy🏄 (talk)09:47, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
"we don't have the sources from which an article can be written". So what is the article in its present form with all information taken from reliable sources? A sensory illusion?~2026-33418-5 (talk)10:44, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The article as it stands is a stub that tells us nothing about the BLP subject other than he has been in a few films. It can't say more because we don't have any sources that tell us anything about him.Sirfurboy🏄 (talk)10:57, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
You mean details about his private life? That's not so uncommon.he has been in a few films= he had significant roles in 3 notable productions and I suppose we should focus on that since he's an actor not a "celebrity".~2026-33418-5 (talk)11:06, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. How much longer are you going toWP:BLUDGEON this one. There is no significant coverage of thisnon notable actor in secondary sources. None. The article should be deleted per policy.Sirfurboy🏄 (talk)11:45, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
One sentence in each 1000-word review amounts to nothing in terms of significant coverage. If they were significant roles, they would have been discussed in depth, not confined to a single sentence.Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk)11:21, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
They absolutely are significant because all the reviews listed mention his role and explain what the actor brings to the film, and that is what matters. See page and above.--~2026-33418-5 (talk)11:37, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The subject has multiple significant roles in notable projects, and all these claims of these roles are verifiable by reliable sources. Which is sufficient to warrant a standalone article, being a stub is not a problem.Zuck28 (talk)05:11, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Since this is obviously going to be brought back to DRV lets give this more time for additional opiniins Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,SpartazHumbug!15:09, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Comment HiZuck28, I think he has good coverage from reliable sources. TheHindustan Times article looks decent, andThe Hans India andNational Herald are also reliable sources. All three appear to be independent sources, as the articles are bylined with journalists’ names and provide direct, meaningful coverage of the person. I’m not fully sure about the reliability of some other sources, so it makes sense to focus on these three. Also i have fixed The Tribune source.Afstromen (talk)06:09, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The HT article is like an interview, hence not independent, the National Herald article is a song announcement/ press release again primary. I would not comment on Hans article but one single source is not sufficient.Zuck28 (talk)06:51, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
WP:TOOSOON applies here? The subject has been active since 2014 and has released multiple songs, acting in various projects, and composing for several plays. This reflects sustained involvement over a number of years, not a recent or one-off appearance.
There is also significant coverage in National publications such as National Herald, The Hans India, Hindustan Times, The Tribune, and Amar Ujala have covered him. In addition, there is regional coverage from Rozana Spokesman and Surkhab TV.
Given the breadth of coverage across multiple independent outlets, the subject appears to meet WP:GNG. On that basis, it does not seem appropriate to categorize the article under WP:TOOSOON.~2026-10666-91 (talk)10:26, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Good catch by the nominator. Superficially it appears that he has multiple roles, but in reality, none of them are significant. So, doesn't passWP:NACTOR. And almost all the sources areWP:PRIMARY interviews, so he doesn't get a GNG pass too due to the lack of independent SIGCOV in RS.BhikhariInformer (talk)03:27, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Brother, these sources do show that he had pivotal roles in these projects. If he is listed as part of the main cast, then it’s hard to say that the roles were not significant. I’m not trying to argue here; as your are an experienced editor and I respect your opinion my brother :).
Yes he has only passing mentions but it is enough to show that he played significant roles, and the sources themselves are reliable. The Tribune, in particular, is a well-established and reputable publication. Here is another Tribune source for Dakuaan Da Munda:[24]
And here is a Times of India review for Tufang:[25]
Redirect per above. The "best" sources here are tabloid gossip, likethis andthis, and they both refer to him as "Lovi Poe's fiancé'. If that's his claim to fame,notability is not inherited, so he should be covered in her article. The rest of his life story seems interesting but equally nothing particularly remarkable for a person in his line(s) of work: he certainly would not pass the "average professor test" ofWP:NACADEMIC or a similar test if we hadWP:NFILMPRODUCER.UndercoverClassicistT·C07:10, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – As demonstrated by sources already cited, the claim that coverage of the subject is limited to lifestyle or tabloid outlets is incorrect. Independent reporting by major entertainment trade publications such asDeadline andVariety documents Montgomery Blencowe’s professional roles in film production and as an executive, while peer-reviewed publications in established scientific journals (includingCell Reports Medicine,Nucleic Acids Research, andGenome Research) demonstrate sustained independent scholarly output. Taken together, these reliable secondary sources satisfyWP:GNG. Any remaining concerns relate to article balance or emphasis and are appropriately addressed through improvement, not deletion or redirect.Dingdongd1887 (talk)06:22, 3 February 2026 (UTC)—Note to closing admin:Dingdongd1887 (talk •contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of thisXfD.[reply]
I concur that these are notWP:SIGCOV. The entirety of the coverage inVariety, for example, is“The Sacrifice” is produced by C’est Lovi Productions and Kind Hearts Entertainment, with Montgomery Blencowe (“Heist,” “Marauders”) and Mark Stewart (“Escape Plan”) serving as producers. This is entirely within the realm ofWP:ROUTINE -- (simply) naming the producers of a film is completely standard when mentioning one and doesn't imply that those producers are notable.UndercoverClassicistT·C07:31, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Each AfD must be assessed on its own merits; however, it is relevant for consistency purposes to observe howWP:GNG is routinely applied to comparable biographies. Wikipedia retains articles on film producers and executives with similar or lesser degrees of independent coverage where the general notability guideline is met (e.g.,Tarek Anthony Jabre). In this case, Montgomery Blencowe’s article is supported by multiple reliable, independent secondary sources across more than one professional domain, including repeated coverage in major entertainment trade publications (Deadline,Variety) as well as peer-reviewed scholarly journals. This level of sourcing is consistent with prevailing editorial standards for comparable biographies and satisfiesWP:GNG. The comparison is not offered to establish notability by analogy, but to demonstrate that the sourcing here is not an outlier warranting deletion.Dantriloo (talk)06:42, 3 February 2026 (UTC)—Dantriloo (talk •contribs) has madefew or no other edits outside this topic.[reply]
Redirect toLovi Poe per nom. FailsWP:NPROF as citation counts are too low, the h-index is 15 per Google Scholar. He is the kind of producer who is not covered byWP:NPRODUCER, as his input was minor, which is evidenced by a lack of mentions of him on the pages of notable movies. GNG is also not met, as we have only passing mentions in RS.Kelob2678 (talk)21:49, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – The subject meets theGeneral Notability Guideline. Montgomery Blencowe has received significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources in connection with his work as a film producer, including coverage in industry trade publications. His productions have involved internationally recognized actors and distribution entities, and those works have themselves received independent media coverage. Per WP:GNG, notability is based on coverage in reliable sources, not the perceived prominence of the individual.In addition to film production, the subject has published peer-reviewed scientific research in reputable academic journals. Academics are evaluated underWP:NACADEMIC, and substantial scholarly publication in established journals further supports notability. The combination of independently covered film credits and peer-reviewed scientific output satisfies Wikipedia’s inclusion standards.The article appears to rely on verifiable sources and is capable of improvement through additional citations if needed. Deletion is not warranted where notability can be demonstrated and sourcing can be strengthened through normal editing processes.Jenrivera13 (talk)02:15, 11 February 2026 (UTC)—Jenrivera13 (talk •contribs) has madefew or no other edits outside this topic.[reply]
The article is not based on Instagram; the subject’s core biographical facts are verifiable through independent, reliable sources. His PhD and academic training are confirmed through institutional records, including theUCLA MCIP alumni directory. His peer-reviewed scientific work is also discussed by other researchers for example, in a magazine insight article entitled "Genetics: From mouse to human" ineLife, Blencowe is specifically mentioned "Now, in eLife, Montgomery Blencowe and Xia Yang from the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) and colleagues – including Zeyneb Kurt and Jenny Cheng as joint first authors – report how the genetic pathways and mechanisms associated with atherosclerosis and coronary artery disease compare between these two species" as one simple example and he is indexed in scholarly databases such as Google Scholar, including authorship in leading journals likeNucleic Acids Research. His professional activity as a film producer is independently documented in major industry trade coverage such asDeadline forThe Sacrifice andBAD MAN, confirming industry recognition and activity for a producer in such announcements. There is a press release noting he hasrepresentation as a producer in Deadline too. While some lifestyle features exist, the subject’s verifiability and notability do not depend on them. PerWP:V andWP:RS, the information is attributable to reliable, independent sources and is fully verifiable.
I do not believe this actress meets Wikipedia’s notability guidelines, as there is a lack of reliable, independent sources.Puda (talk)22:05, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as there arethree solid sources for the subject. [1] and [2] above were syndicated nationally and there's a profile of her in a recent LA Times article about Grey's Anatomy [3] - I also include a newspapers.com url in the article for this one. I also found this[32] which was an article about her inHealth (magazine) in 2005, that unfortunately only has an abstract. Nonetheless it looks like coverage that would count. I realize the article initially was unsourced and a bit of a mess. I'm pinging everyone in this AfD to take another look as this is aWP:HEY situation.Nnev66 (talk)22:07, 2 February 2026 (UTC) cc:Puda,Svartner,FiddleheadLady,OrangeWaylon,Zuck28,Iljhgtn,Bearian[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Giving this a couple more days to address the newly added sources. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,Owen×☎00:09, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Note the earlier consensus was based on an article that is vastly different than the current one (seediff) and the only source at that time was IMDB, which has been removed as a reference. There are now multiple independent, reliable sources with significant coverage of the subject. It would be good to better understand any objections to them.Nnev66 (talk)01:20, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:
passing mention
Comment: IsWP:DENY applicable here? --SatnaamIN (talk)02:00, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Closed discussion, seefull discussion. Result was:delete