Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Louise Camrass (2nd nomination)

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. ✗plicit 23:18, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Louise Camrass[edit]

AfDs for this article:

[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)

Neither source given is a WP:RS, cannot find non-self-published sources DirtyHarry991 (talk) 11:01, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Artists. DirtyHarry991 (talk) 11:01, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and United Kingdom. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:45, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I do not see any in-depth coverage and she fails WP:NARTIST. This article's first nomination was closed as a soft delete on 20 September 2023. I guess some wires were crossed because the AfD info was removed from the article as if it was a keep, but no notation on the talk page. Not much has changed since I removed all the uncited information from the page (back in September), just some tags added. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:53, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Does not appear to meet any NARTIST criteria (even with the claims in the poorly referenced but longer older version). ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 09:32, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:35, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, without prejudice to restoration to draft if additional sources are found. Nothing here speaks to encyclopedic notability. BD2412 T 15:28, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This article was relisted with the reason that it is ineligible for soft deletion. Please look at the nomination from September. The article was soft deleted then, but not processed properly. Could a closer take a second look at the first nomination? Thanks! --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 17:58, 25 November 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.