Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Twinnie Lee Moore

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 keep. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 04:22, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Twinnie Lee Moore[edit]

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

An article started by an SPA with two edits (this article and modifications to Emma Barton to include this actress) that has only gotten worse with IP edits. Most of the editors with usernames are bots. Raymie (t • c) 04:41, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral I may ultimately agree that the article should be deleted, but in my opinion none of the arguments the nominator presents are reasons to delete an article. They are reasons to be suspicious about a given article, but not reasons to actually delete. Perhaps I'm splitting hairs, but I don't think casting aspersions on the article's creator and/or subsequent contributors represents a compelling reason to delete, in most cases. Regardless, I think there is cause to be concerned with the subject's notability. I would be unhesitant about expressing a Delete !vote here, but this is certainly non-trivial coverage of the subject. I am less certain about the reliability of the source, however, and the article itself is a puff piece with very weak sourcing as-is. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 05:34, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is a coverage in the G-News Archives, see for example this profile published by The Press. @nominator: Please, consider notability of the subject, not editors who worked on it. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 07:22, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but cleanup. Article is terrible, but person seems notable per sources found by Vejvančický.--70.80.234.196 (talk) 13:00, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as assertion of notability is there, article is sourced, and more sources are available. And wow... a new editor is called SPA because he/she has so far worked on one article. Eveyone has to start someplace. The article is emminently improvable by editors with greater experience in addressing style and additional sourcing than has the newcomer. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 15:53, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep OK, I cleaned up the article, fixed the tone and peacockery, and included better references. I think she is clearly notable and the article should now be acceptable. --MelanieN (talk) 02:04, 17 September 2010 (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.