Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gabrielle Fitzpatrick

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

The result was keep. Tone 12:04, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gabrielle Fitzpatrick[edit]

Gabrielle Fitzpatrick (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable actress. Ridernyc (talk) 19:43, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 19:57, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 19:58, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Appears to meet NACTOR requirements, and the cursory cookie-cutter nomination provides no basis for concluding otherwise. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 21:50, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
again can find no source outside of directories. Please stop this cookie cutter keep campaign and site real reason to keep. Ridernyc (talk) 22:05, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Johnston, Tony (8 March 1998), "Signing the blues", Sunday Herald Sun
Casamento, Joanne (26 February 1998), "Blue belle Fitzpatrick", Daily Telegraph
Martin, Carolyn (24 March 1998), "Hello Hollywood - Almost", The West Australian
Ellis, Scott (18 March 1998), "Gabrielle, the true blue belle", Adelaide Advertiser
Mitchell, Lisa (9 April 1998), "Decent Exposure", The Age
Notable via WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. duffbeerforme (talk) 23:30, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I had seen this a few days ago and had wondered how someone with this kind of filmography could possibly not meet our notability requirements. While I can't see the sources duffbeerforme has provided, it appears from their very titles that they are likely to constitute significant coverage in reliable sources, which is not at all surprising. --Mkativerata (talk) 11:02, 13 August 2014 (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.