Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Margaret Ehrlich

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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:38, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Margaret Ehrlich

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Died way too young to amass enough credits to satisfy WP:NACTOR. Wikipedia is not a memorial. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:53, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NACTOR. The subject is an actress who had only three film roles, all of which were uncredited parts. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 23:33, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I wouldnt rely on IMDB but there is nothing I see there that meets WP:Notability. I agree three uncredited roles do not come anywhere meeting notability requirements. Possible candidate for speedy deletion.ScienceAdvisor (talk) 01:06, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article fails WP:NACTRESS since she only had three uncredited film roles. Wikipedia is also not a WP:MEMORIAL. I would agree with a speedy deletion as well. Newshunter12 (talk) 02:20, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment She did not actually have only 3 film roles - or at least, articles about her at the time said that she appeared in Operator 13 and Naughty Marietta. While she may not meet WP:NACTOR, I am checking the amount of coverage to see if she meets WP:GNG. The article is written in the style of an obituary, but that is not a reason for deletion - it could easily be edited. RebeccaGreen (talk) 07:49, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would be curious as to where all this information on her was sourced? I don't see any references there that divulge that much biographical information. I would still doubt she meets the notability guidelines for any subject but I would be curious to know what area the author thinks she is relevant for a encyclopedic entry for? I see one gossip mention and 3 articles on the accident. ScienceAdvisor (talk) 19:52, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 18:35, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 18:35, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 18:35, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:NACTOR. -- Dane ^talk 02:08, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have added more sources, and some additional information. All of the information in the article can be sourced to articles in newspapers and journals. However, it is clear that before her death, there were only passing mentions. There was significant coverage of her death, but, per WP:NOTNEWSPAPER and WP:SUSTAINED, "Brief bursts of news coverage may not sufficiently demonstrate notability." So she does not meet WP:GNG. RebeccaGreen (talk) 03:46, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:ACTOR.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:22, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since subject fails WP:NACTOR. Perhaps later it won't. -The Gnome (talk) 09:50, 4 May 2019 (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.