Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rebecca Fordyce

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) 00:34, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rebecca Fordyce[edit]

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

Non-notable per WP:ENT, highly promotional tone per WP:PROMO, no significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources. Prod contested by creator. MuffledThud (talk) 10:53, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —MuffledThud (talk) 10:54, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep...There is legitimate notability. Tone has been changed to neutral (sorry, I'm a paparazzi journalist). Naturally, her websites are the most credible sources; as Rebecca does, actors generally lack scholarly entries. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bigapplestars (talk • contribs) 11:13, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There may be notability in the future, but she actually hasn't done anything thats been in the public eye except for a little modelling and some work as an extra. The work she may become notable for hasn't aired yet, and wikipedia is not a crystal ball as to whether it will. Clovis Sangrail (talk) 11:30, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable Defender of torch (talk) 13:50, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Her websites are the least reliable evidence so far as Wikipedia is concerned. Actors may lack scholarly entries - but they get referred to in newspaper reviews, etc. I can't see anything that indicates present or past notability, and the future hasn't arrived yet. I wish her success - and when she's got it, someone will have made an article about her before she remembers to get it done... Peridon (talk) 15:46, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lacks even an IMDb entry, which, for an actress/presenter, says a lot. No evidence of notability from an online search either.—DMCer™ 19:09, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no indicia of notability. TJRC (talk) 21:28, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 01:06, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice toward recreation if and/or when the article can be properly sourced. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:58, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unclear why she is notable Vartanza (talk) 10:28, 22 January 2010 (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.