Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scarlett Stitt

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 redirect. Beeblebrox (talk) 07:31, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Scarlett Stitt

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

lacks notability, could not find anything on google and does not follow the manual of style King Curtis Gooden (talk) 22:46, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 22:54, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per WP:NotJustYet to Horrid Henry: The Movie, as the one place where this new child actor has any decent verifiability and where readers can read about her in context to her role in that film. Her one sourcable role fails WP:ENT, and what coverage she does have is for her debut appearance in that film.[1] That redirect serves for now for this essentially WP:BLP1E. And in an aside, I am quite surprised at the nominator's poor deletion rationale "could not find anything on google and does not follow the manual of style" as multiple sources for verifiability ARE quite easy to find, and a poor article format is usually preferred to be addressed through regular editing.[2] Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:36, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with the redirect As said I agree with the redirect and please remember not to bite the newcomers, it was scary enough putting something up for deletion.King Curtis Gooden (talk) 23:54, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A nomination rationale should hopefully reflect as much policy and guideline diligence as possible, else it might itself be scrutinized. No insult was intended. The word "surprised" was a way of showing my raised eyebrows, nothing more. The redirect serves the project quite well... and that the article was premature was a good catch, after all. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:53, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect someplace Stuartyeates (talk) 07:09, 14 November 2011 (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.