Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Donnabella Mortel (2nd nomination)

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 08:06, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Donnabella Mortel[edit]

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

Not a notable actor. Page is here to promote someone else. Mortel lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. She does not have multiple significant roles in notable productions as asked for in WP:NACTOR. Per the consensus from the last afd, this article should be deleted. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:47, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:15, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure that the last AfD reached consensus, but regardless, delete. Does not meet WP:NACTOR or WP:GNG. I looked through what she is done and the only major credits I could find associated with her were for Retail, The Value of Ex, and Hoodrats 2: Hoodrat Warriors. These works, however, are not notable; they do not meet WP:MOVIE and accordingly none of them have their own article. Sjrct (talk) 02:42, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:13, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Actor has a number of minor roles[1] but I couldn't find any coverage at all of Mortel in Highbeam, General Onefile, Questia, or Google, other than 4 press releases and a few articles about TV shows in which Mortel's name appears in the cast list near the bottom of the article. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:34, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As I mentioned to the admin who closed the previous discussion, not only did 3 participants (the nominator and 2 other editors) share a consensus for deletion, but the only "keep" comment wasn't based on any policy or guideline, and not defended when challenged. I have been unable to find any sources that suggest she meets any criteria in WP:NACTOR. The closing admin had no objection to re-nomination, however. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:34, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nordic Nightfury 07:35, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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