Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vanessa Garnick

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. RL0919 (talk) 04:00, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Vanessa Garnick[edit]

[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)

There is no indication of notability here. While I initially thought appearing on Caught in the Moment might garner some coverage, there's simply no RS that turn up. This article is completely unsourced and unencyclopedic. Kbabej (talk) 03:54, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Kbabej (talk) 03:55, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Kbabej (talk) 03:56, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:11, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. It's odd that this page has been around for 13 years and not edited very much. Can we search deeper for possible sources? Is she presumed notable due to her work on a popular TV series? Cam this be merged somewhere? Bearian (talk) 16:43, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like it's already merged. The info from this article already appears on Caught in the Moment under her section. --Kbabej (talk) 23:17, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This unsourced, possibly unverifiable puff piece is already in the Caught in the Moment article. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 15:30, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete' An article only sourced to the unreliable IMDb. The fact that this article has seen so little editing while existing over a decade is probably a strong indicator the subject is just not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:59, 1 December 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.