Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Julia Faye West

--69.75.118.134 (talk) 22:21, 23 November 2016 (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. postdlf (talk) 22:39, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Julia Faye West[edit]

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

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

Not yet notable per WP:NACTOR, sole reference is IMDB which lists only minor roles in films so far. No significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources. Altered Walter (talk) 11:50, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Altered Walter (talk) 11:51, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence at all of any notability. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:29, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No significant coverage found (WP:GNG); roles to date do not satisfy WP:ENT. Gong show 17:59, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 18:53, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete - First of all, I'm concerned by the possible copy violation from the IMDb bio which I find suspicious that both accounts (the user who submitted the bio and this article's creator) are single purpose accounts. Second, she has never received any significant work with nearly everything being minor roles and the TV jobs are no more than one episode. I thought searching with Google News would probably be useless unless she has other work such as plays and theatre productions, I searched but alas found nothing relevant. Considering the close paraphrasing, I would lean towards a G12 deletion as a precaution but I don't know if this article's biography came before the IMDb one. I searched Google News again with her next film, Slink, but found nothing useful and a different search provided this which wouldn't be very helpful. SwisterTwister talk 23:42, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Gongshow. Royal broil 04:24, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT YET (actors). Yes, as a working actress she gets roles... but most are minor and she gets no coverage. If or when this changes we can undelete and expand and source this article. But for now, and despite a nod toward WP:HOTTIE, she fails WP:PEOPLE. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:53, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No offense intended, but you greatly expanded the page by adding her filmography, but after that effort, you decided it should be deleted. Why? Won't that waste your expansion efforts? Bonkers The Clown (Nonsensical Babble) 05:31, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The unexpanded article was pretty threadbare and I feel its always both good experience and practice to fix something up. Having more for others to study might have encouraged expanded searches for her under her various names and projects... and just maybe someone else might come along and be luckier than I. Many time an actor pushes at ENT... and had this one had some sort of recognition for her roles, she might have been found just notable enough. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:39, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mm, agreed, it is a good practice. I have tried expanding too, and more is coming. Bonkers The Clown (Nonsensical Babble) 11:37, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My sentiments the exact same as Michaels'. Though in my standards she fails WP:HOTTIE. Delete Hahaha. Bonkers The Clown (Nonsensical Babble) 05:31, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at many of her roles, it seems she does (or did) things because she has (or had) the looks that made her eye candy enough for various productions. However, eye candy is not an inclusion criteria. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:39, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's not. :) Bonkers The Clown (Nonsensical Babble) 11:37, 26 December 2012 (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.