Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emma Degerstedt

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. — Jake Wartenberg 20:28, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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. The actress seems to be just fairly non-notable for now. No prejudice to recreation if more sources appear in the future. NW (Talk) 20:24, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Emma Degerstedt[edit]

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

fails WP:ENT. mainly passing mentions in gnews search. lacks indepth third party coverage [1] LibStar (talk) 03:53, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 19:45, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 19:46, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep I can't find any significant coverage by reliable sources, but I think an actress on a Nickelodeon show would have that coverage somewhere. Her official website has a "Press" page with links [2], but they're either links to brief mentions in reviews or to local papers where the original story no longer seems to be available on the website, at least for free. I think any local newspaper where she lives would have had an article on her with significant depth of coverage. It's what they do. Admittedly, I can't prove this, but it's not just a wild guess, either. -- Noroton (talk) 01:38, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep in agreement with Noroton's assessment. Once this youngster gets out of high school, the positive mentions such as "Degerstedt dances with grace and sophistication.", Palisadian Post, January 24, 2007, will likely increase, not diminsh. Certainly the current BLP suffers from as yet unsupported informations, but she was in 31 episodes of Unfabulous and has received some small recognition for her stagework. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 07:46, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete We do not keep articles because someone's crystal ball says they are bound to become more notable in the future. I need to see significant coverage in multiple reliable and independent sources before concluding she has sufficient notability for an article at this stage of her career. Edison (talk) 14:51, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Week keep She seems to just about scrape notabiliy and that is based on her previous screen appearences rather than Crystal Ball stuff about her future - for all we know she may never act or do anything else notable again. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 17:10, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A supporting role in a minor TV series and a list of minor one off appearences doesn't reach notability. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:28, 25 August 2009 (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.