Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dorothy Steel (actress)

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 keep‎ . ✗plicit 11:39, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dorothy Steel (actress)[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)

I first saw this article when I was surfing the article about the film, Black Panther: Wakanda Forever only to find the short description and the filmography about the actress. I prefer the information about this article should be other websites like IMDb and Rotten Tomatoes. Since those websites didn't need a big description of an article about someone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4lepheus B4ron (talk • contribs) 08:59, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep An article's stubbiness is not a valid reason to delete it, and the subject passes the GNG. – dudhhr^talk _contribs (he/they) 01:03, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. – dudhhr^talk _contribs (he/they) 01:05, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Procedural relist: AfD discussion was never transcluded to the log.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – dudhhr^talk _contribs (he/they) 01:08, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep No valid reason for deletion given. Subject passes GNG. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 01:11, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Actress in major film franchise with multiple instances of whole-article coverage from major media outlets. Easily meets WP:GNG. Oblivy (talk) 06:30, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Michigan. Shellwood (talk) 09:12, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. While most coverage arose from her death, not all of it did, and therefore she at least meets WP:BASIC and probably meets WP:GNG in my opinion. Analysis based on existing sources in the article. CT55555(talk) 14:42, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Meets the criteria of WP:GNG. -- StarryNightSky11 ☎ 23:55, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Unquestionably meets the criteria. No good reasons to delete. The person who loves reading (talk) 03:13, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep I 100% see how this was a borderline case and even I had to go deep into Google to find them. But this annoyingly counts "technically". Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 07:13, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Profile in The New York Times[1]. Notable. -- Jaireeodell (talk) 15:19, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Borderline case but well-sourced. She has acted in some of the most recognisable films and has minimum coverage to pass WP:GNG. Thilsebatti (talk) 17:08, 21 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.