Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Catherine McQueen


 * 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   no consensus. A few additional sources to address the notability issues raised in the nomination have been provided. Sjakkalle (Check!)  15:09, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Catherine McQueen

 * – ( View AfD View log ) •

Poorly sourced BLP with tag identified as notability concerns by another editor. -- Cirt (talk) 12:18, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Does not seem to fit the criteria for notability per WP:BIO, particularly for Entertainers. Google search turns up mostly social networking links. Outside of that, I was unable to find anything with substantial, in depth coverage.  Barkeep   Chat 16:07, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:22, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete I'm having trouble finding coverage to meet WP:ENT too. FWIW, I'm the one who tagged it for notability. I figured a Bond Girl should have it, but it looks like a bit part, unremarked upon. Ray  Talk 07:02, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Anyone click the news link? I found the sources listed below, which for me passes WP:GNG. I will be asking the other editors to reconsider their !vote. Bigger digger (talk) 16:56, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The Independent, UK
 * The Herald, Scotland
 * The Hindu, India
 * Middling mentions here, here, here, here and here
 * Scurillous gossip here.
 * And WP:HOTTIE...
 * Some good examples, but while we may have some substantial amount of coverage it seems to teeter on the trivial side, at least in my view (i.e. covers items that do not meet WP:ENT). The Hindu seems to be the only one that has in depth coverage, and even then its just a resume. I will say that The Hindu article would be good source for the article to use in the article as a reference.  Barkeep   Chat 17:30, 22 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Weak keep. The coverage found by Bigger digger does make her notable per GNG, if only barely so: I agree with Barkeep about all coverage but The Hindu's being rather trivial.  Sandstein   06:45, 23 November 2010 (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.