Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jayne Tunnicliffe

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 redirect to List of Coronation Street characters (2005)#Yana Lumb. While some sources have been found, there is sufficient concern over the reliability and relevance of them that most participants feel removing the article in favour of a redirect would be a sensible choice. ~ mazca ^talk 14:08, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jayne Tunnicliffe[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)

not seeing how meets gng Laun chba ller 21:18, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:42, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:42, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:42, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:43, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable actress. This does not meet GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:54, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep or Redirect: There are a number of Metro and The Sun articles, although they are not considered reliable sources. There is also coverage in The Mirror (https://www.mirror.co.uk/tv/tv-news/keith-lemons-new-show-horrifies-22005570), where there is no consensus as to reliability, and in other sources for which I haven't been able to find a consensus:

→https://www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/news/18447167.keith-lemon-show-goes-ethos-crafting-says-contestant/ – The Bradford Telegraph and Argus

→https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/showbiz-news/soap-stars-street-art-987997 – Manchester Online

→https://www.cravenherald.co.uk/news/8235391.former-corrie-star-turns-skiptons-sheep-into-pop-art/ – Craven Herald and Pioneer

I'd certainly appreciate feedback on whether any of the above sources are considered reliable. If the consensus is to delete the article, however, I would suggest a "redirect" to Coronation Street characters. Dflaw4 (talk) 14:55, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I've never been sure about the reliability of local papers. You should ask at the reliable sources noticeboard.--Laun chba ller 16:12, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for starting that discussion at the noticeboard, Launchballer. It is a good question and I am interested to see what others think! Dflaw4 (talk) 00:34, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 21:57, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:50, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep or Redirect I agree with Dflaw4, it's a keep --although weak-- or a redirect to Coronation Street characters. The question on the reliability of local papers is interesting, any link to get the answer? Innovamus (talk) 04:14, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Right here, although I forgot to ask whether that Mirror source was reliable or not and may post again on the noticeboard to ask about it.--Laun chba ller 15:25, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the redirect target above. I'm pretty sure in most cases local papers are to narrow in audience and therefore not suitable. There's something in notability about how newspapers have to at least be regional and should still be used with caution even in that case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adamant1 (talk • contribs) 05:43, 26 May 2020 (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.