Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Candace Carey
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. Kurykh 03:40, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Candace Carey[edit]
- Candace Carey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
Delete-As far as I can see, there is no notability. One of her supposed films was not credited, the other is at best a glorified, 4th string extra. Possibility of persona lrelationship with author? Anyway, no notability for this 2 time extra, who may or may not have been a 5 timer, for non-notable indie films. I tagged this months ago, and there has been no notable improvement. JJJ999 (talk) 05:02, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep Well if she's good enough for Yahoo!, she must be good enough for Wikipedia. ― LADY GALAXY 05:25, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I am the author. First, JJJ999's accusation that I have any relationship with this person is not only absolutely ridiculous, it's totally baseless, unnecessary, and smacks of bad faith. All that being said, this was one of the first articles I wrote, before I really understood WP:N. The actress doesn't really meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Bad faith nom though this may be, I've been on record since September that she is of borderline notability at best. faithless (speak) 06:00, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Bad faith aside, she's not notable. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 06:13, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment- I didn't say you did have personal contact with her, I just speculated that was a possiblility. The reason I speculated this is because, as you admit, the article is clearly not notable, and borderline at best.JJJ999 (talk) 03:22, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment So you're saying that it's standard practice for you to extend bad faith, even when you have absolutely no reason for doing so? I see. Well, once again, let me reiterate: this was one of the very first articles I wrote, before I understood Wikipedia's notability guidelines. From this you get the impression of a conflict of interest? And I hardly said that she is "clearly not notable," but rather of borderline notability; not at all the same thing. faithless (speak) 23:49, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment- I didn't say you did have personal contact with her, I just speculated that was a possiblility. The reason I speculated this is because, as you admit, the article is clearly not notable, and borderline at best.JJJ999 (talk) 03:22, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, a sharp rebuke to the nominator for the way they have nominated this, which certainly could be interpreted as not WP:AGF. However, the nominator is right in regards to the article, since this person clearly is not notable. Lankiveil (complaints | disco) 03:20, 27 January 2008 (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.