Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jacqueline Dyris
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is the current revision of this page, as edited by MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) at 00:41, 13 April 2022 (Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.
Revision as of 00:41, 13 April 2022 by MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) (Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12))
(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
- 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. (non-admin closure) Acather96 (talk) 07:08, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Jacqueline Dyris (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The article doesn't assert notability and doesn't adress the notability criteria found in WP:ENT. I made a quick search in Google Books and found only mentions of her name without any significant coverage. Dragquennom (talk) 21:04, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. GNews archive search shows significant coverage in LA Times, indicating sufficient roles to satisfy WP:ENT as well as GNG. GBooks results also indicate sufficient roles. Lack of detailed online coverage does not prove failure to satisfy GNG for subjects prominent 90-100 years ago, like silent film actresses. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:46, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:15, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Seems notable per Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. Not a BLP so lets err on the side of inclusion on this one. Monty845 19:51, 29 April 2011 (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.