Emma Rayne Lyle – Endorse, but restore There is clear consensus here that the original close was done correctly, given the information available at the time. Since then, additional references have been located which establish that the subject meets WP:GNG. I'm going to restore the article, and I assume somebody will step up to merge the newly found citations into it. As always, deletion review is more about process than notability, so if anybody feels the added references still do not establish WP:N, they can bring it back to AfD for another look. – -- RoySmith(talk) 17:18, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
The rationale is that the subject is a professional working actress and as such requires a credible page to reference her work in the industry. This is not for publicity, this is for reference purposes only. She has met notability guidelines per Wikipedia. There are substantial credible newspapers and film blogs that discuss her role in films---they do not mention non-notable actors in reviews of films---you must have a notable role to be mentioned in the article or review, there are substantial links to film websites substantiating her roles in film and television and she has been interviewed below.
This deletion review is malformed as the person requesting the review, 24.100.172.172 (talk·contribs), hasn't provided a reason for the review. I note that the IP has placed some text at Talk:Emma Rayne Lyle. I don't know if that text is meant to be the reason for the deletion review. --Stefan2 (talk) 19:24, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Here are some interview regarding Emma personally. Emma does NOT do many interviews (by choice) and does not pay for PR, hence, the lack of articles solely about Emma, but below you will find some articles speaking in greater detail about Emma.
This article was written by Chris Harris for the Commonwealth Journal--There was an indication in your debate that her parent wrote the article---this is erroneous and false---please remove comment. Emma and her mother donated their time to help the local arts community by volunteering for this project and raising money for the YEARN Program.
Emma has been in numerous notable films and television shows. I believe that is the qualifier of notable actress.
Ok, these links are better. The proper way to overturn deletion is to go to deletion review and present the case there. I don't mind restoring the article if a consensus is reached there. Let me know if you need help with the process. --Tone 16:30, 25 August 2014 (UTC) 24.100.172.172 (talk) 18:55, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, these links are better. The proper way to overturn deletion is to go to deletion review and present the case there. I don't mind restoring the article if a consensus is reached there. Let me know if you need help with the process. --Tone 16:30, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
Endorse, but restore. Cunard makes the case for this very well.—S MarshallT/C 08:08, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As above, Endorse the close, but undelete, restore to mainspace, no prejudice against an immediate renomination at AfD (aka Relist if someone wants to immediately renominate). The nomination and sources provided here don't contradict the sentiments of the delete !votes, but the sources referred to in the AfD seem to be very different to the three listed here, and what I find by googling. It would be nice to be able to see the deleted page. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:48, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse but restore - As the nominator I actually found nothing & seems the same can be said for the voters on the AFD, I personally wouldn't mind withdrawing the AFD (once restored) since quite alot of sources have been found, –Davey2010 • (talk) 15:30, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
