Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Danda Russo

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. Star Mississippi 18:25, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Danda Russo[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)

Advertorialized WP:BLP of an actor and filmmaker, not properly referenced as passing our inclusion criteria for actors or filmmakers. As always, every person in the film industry is not automatically entitled to have a Wikipedia article just because there are film credits listed in it -- the notability test depends on the reception of real, reliable third party media coverage about her and her performances to satisfy WP:GNG, not just on listing roles per se. But there isn't any GNG-worthy coverage about her being cited here at all -- the only reference in the entire article is the self-published website of the university she attended, and even that is just serving to verify that the screenwriting program exists while not even glancingly mentioning Danda Russo at all, and the writing tone is dancing perilously close to being speediable as a G11 (though stopping just marginally short of being blatant enough to activate my deletion trigger finger.)
Obviously no prejudice against recreation in the future if and when she has a stronger notability claim than just existing and legitimate GNG-worthy reliable sourcing to support a properly and neutrally written article, but nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to keep an article that's written and sourced like this. Bearcat (talk) 19:33, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and United States of America. Bearcat (talk) 19:33, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Brazil. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:23, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Searches found absolutely nothing to suggest notability, this feels like an easy one. But if I've missed something, ping me and I'll gladly reconsider. CT55555(talk) 13:19, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A sourceless text, created by an SPA, about a subject lacking independent notability even by the simplest Wikipedia criterion. Such assessments never reflect on the merits of the individual, of course. But Wikipedia is neither a directory of actors nor a collection of random information. -The Gnome (talk) 16:02, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:COPYVIO and WP:BLP. It's not entirely sourceless, but having one source constitutes a de facto copyright violation as well as a serious probem with a BLP. WE look for significant coverage in multiple reliable sources, every element of which is missing here. Bearian (talk) 17:24, 14 April 2023 (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.