Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mina sundwall

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. Black Kite (talk) 22:32, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mina sundwall[edit]

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

Normally, I wouldn't nominate an article so soon after creation, however, in this case it appears to be a textbook case of WP:TOOSOON. Clearly does not meet WP:NACTOR, and the dearth of in-depth coverage in RS means she doesn't meet WP:GNG. Only trivial mentions on News, nothing on Newspapers, zero on Scholar and Books (as you might expect), and zero on Highbeam and JSTOR. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:55, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:06, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:06, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:06, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Believe me Onel5969 it was likely better to nominate now because from what I see now there's nothing to suggest better improvement aside from some links News and Google browser and her IMDb summarizes it nicely...some roles including in production but nothing solid yet. If not nominated now, this has the vulnerability of staying here for years until it seems obvious for AfD (I myself am currently going through old articles to nominate, that needed to be deleted long ago). SwisterTwister talk 06:34, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 21:24, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. borderline notable at best, and very clear promotionalism. DGG ( talk ) 23:08, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:ENT and also a case of WP:TOOSOON. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 04:57, 19 October 2015 (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.