Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kate Bell (Australia)

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. Cirt (talk) 19:25, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kate Bell (Australia)[edit]

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

Non-notable, promotion. No notable credits and only sources are MySpace and an agency profile. Mbinebri ^{talk ←} 16:55, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Canley (talk) 02:21, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The article is spammy and doesn't have sources to meet WP:BIO Nick-D (talk) 11:29, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:10, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet WP:GNG. Richard (talk) 23:31, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BIO. Johnuniq (talk) 03:07, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
When I first saw this listed I thought hell no, clearly notable. But this is a different Kate Bell, one with no clear claim to notability and lacking significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Delete until something is written about her instead of by her or her DVDs achieve any significant recognition. Duffbeerforme (talk) 12:38, 29 September 2009 (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.