Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Julie Eckersley (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 keep. Jujutacular (talk) 03:30, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Julie Eckersley[edit]

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

Fails the notability guideline for biographies. First AfD was closed as no consensus. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 18:45, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable actress.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:45, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - actress, writer, producer, and 2015 award increases notability; I note also that in the previous AfD discussion there was a clear lean towards keep. MurielMary (talk) 09:55, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She has enough roles as actress and other parts of production to pass NACTOR. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:48, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:01, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:01, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Adequate coverage by third-party publications independent of the subject. GNG met. Montanabw ^(talk) 21:09, 29 July 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.