Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amy Chance


 * 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. Tone 20:52, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Amy Chance

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Fails all criteria of WP:NACTOR and lacks the significant coverage required by WP:BASIC and WP:GNG. (1) She does not appear to have had "significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions", (2) does not appear to have "a large fan base or a significant "cult" following", and (3) does not appear to have "made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment". The Sacramento Bee has a lot of false positives for someone else sharing the same name who is their political section editor, as is evidenced by this verified Twitter account for the Bee editor and (I think) this verified Twitter account for the subject of this specific Wikipedia article. The SandDoctor Talk 03:12, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  The SandDoctor  Talk 03:12, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions.  The SandDoctor  Talk 03:12, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions.  The SandDoctor  Talk 03:12, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 06:51, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 06:51, 28 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete does not meet any of the actual inclusion criteria for actresses as is well analyzed by the nominator.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:30, 28 October 2020 (UTC)


 * 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.