Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anita Short Metz Grossman (2nd nomination)


 * 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. Enigmamsg 23:43, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Anita Short Metz Grossman
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:NBIO. Cannot find any sources for her and Horton, or her and the HUAC. I suspect that the references are mainly about the productions and only make incidental comment on Grossman. If anyone could find a reliable source, it would be welcome. Rogermx (talk) 23:32, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 00:54, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 00:54, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 00:54, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 00:54, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 00:54, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 00:54, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 00:54, 9 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete being mentioned by name in a hearing of the US house is not at all a sign of notability. Thus the last AfD discussion was built around flaed reasoning. It is hard to see a way to argue that the text of such hearings are other than primary sources. Nothing presented that goes anywhere near showing the indepth coverage in reliable, secondary sources needed to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:08, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete Seems to lack any high-quality sources. Fails WP:NBIO. The previous nomination seemed to be stuck on a particular mention at a committee hearing. Snowycats (talk) 03:32, 15 July 2018 (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.