Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jamie Anne Allman

This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2008 August 20.
For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review.

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. Marginal notability concerns are secondary to a lack of reliable sources to produce an article that meets WP:V and WP:BLP. — Scientizzle 15:27, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jamie Anne Allman

Fails WPBIO. Bit player with no substantial resume, few google hits to empty pages, and no references cited in the article. Writing reeks of a vanity page. Lenky (talk) 01:08, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:BIO. Juliancolton ^{The storm still blows...} 01:26, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete Marginal notability, but no non-trivial secondary sources. In addition, the text as it exists is blatant plagiarism and possibly a copyright violation from here [1]. Mstuczynski (talk) 02:17, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
She is notable enough. How many works did she had to do to become notable? Thirty aren't enough? Just because some of the biografical elements are plagiarism it doesn't justify a whole deletion, since her roles are still to be mentioned. G.-M. C. 12:24, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thirty, sure, but the majority are one-off appearances in TV shows, none are featured roles. The only possible exception I can see is a short recurring role in The Shield. And "some" of the biographical elements aren't plagiarism - all of them are. I think you should peruse the criteria for WP:BIO. The defining phrase, I believe, is this: A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent and independent of the subject. Jamie Allman does not fit this criteria. -- Lenky (talk) 16:07, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I addressed this concern, but to clarify. Her notability is marginal, but maybe enough to qualify, the issue is lack of reliable sources and thus verifiablility. I actually went looking for reliable sources to save this article but was unable to find any. Mstuczynski (talk) 19:43, 6 March 2008 (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.