Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Galadriel Stineman

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. basically for the lack of notability JForget 15:22, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Galadriel Stineman[edit]

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

Contested PROD, "Looks like a copypaste of a previously deleted version which also consisted of a short, if not weak, reasoning for notability along with a copypaste of the subject's IMDb page." This'll be the third deletion for this article and nothing I've seen confers notability regarding this actress. treelo _radda 01:55, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- treelo _radda 01:56, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete. Notability is a question, however the referencing is not sufficient for said article. IShadowed ✰ 06:54, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Just gave it a rewrite, a minor cleanup, and added a couple sources. Perhaps someone else might wish to read through a few of the other such at HERE and HERE and join in adding some too? If an article can be improved through regular editing, I believe it should be. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:54, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 01:31, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Week Delete: Google News only shows two pages of results and seems to backup the notability issue. Let the actress have a little more time before warranting a article. ⇒ Pickbothmanlol 02:18, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not enough coverage by reliable independent secondary sources. Does not meet WP:ENT. Algébrico (talk) 01:52, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:08, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Even if what's said in the article was referenced beyond any doubt, there's no indication that any of that is notable. Shadowjams (talk) 05:42, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- One might consider if the Ben 10 series has a cult following, thus bringing its actors notability through WP:ENT. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.}
Comment AFD tags are not to be removed from articles before the AFD discussion is closed. No doubt with the best of intentions, User:WhatGuy set the article as a redirect on December 16 thus effectively removing the AFD tag and the article itself from easy review. Though a redirect might be a possible outcome of this AFD, I am reverting to the pre-redirect state until this discussion is closed. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:37, 17 December 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.