Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Debbie King (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. v/r - TP 00:56, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Debbie King
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log )

Delete Being married to a semi-noteable person does not make Debbie King noteable herself. All of her references are about her husband. Dutyscenee (talk) 11:09, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 13:24, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 13:24, 19 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete as lacking significant coverage in multiple independent third party sources. Feel free to ping my talk page if these are added to the article. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:35, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails notability. --Cox wasan (talk) 18:24, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep: Passes WP:ENTERTAINER as she "had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions".--Cavarrone (talk) 23:15, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * These are minor film and TV roles bar one; if those minor roles counts as notability, does that mean actors with minor bit-part roles are famous too, plus IMDB is not a reliable third party sources. Donnie Park (talk) 00:11, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I was referring to her works as TV-presenter, not as actress. I thought it was clear, as I wrote in bold "television shows".--Cavarrone (talk) 11:17, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Thats if significant coverage in multiple independent third party sources do exist, she is like every other run of the mill graveyard shift presenter, including those in shopping channels like QVC, people who scrape the bottom barrel of celebritydom presenting like they are high on cocaine with the hope that someday they will achieve fame when they never will, only earn enough money to pay their bills, the tanning booth and more cocaine. Should that fail, they will always seek out a D-lister like what she done with the hope that they can build their fame upon their spouse. The trouble is, I cannot find any significant coverage in multiple independent third party sources in any of her quiz shows, that is because they are always on timeslot where fewer people can be bother to watch at all. Donnie Park (talk) 22:54, 29 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete or Merge to Quizmania if reliable third party sources does exist - only notable from memory was for presenting that one show, the other existed for one episode (if reliable third party source does exist). No significant coverage in multiple independent third party sources do exist for her quiz shows, why? They are shown on graveyard slot where significant coverage in multiple independent third party sources is pretty much irrelevant. Nobody writes news articles about these shows anyway. Her only saving grace, if TV guides counts as reliable third party source, is recently a school/docusoap for people who can't get into any modelling agency, BINTM or any other scam modeling agency, where gullible parents post their kids to her school in a hope that they will become the next Kate Moss. Not really a bad thing if you are trying to cling on the the bottom barrel of celebritydom. Donnie Park (talk) 00:11, 29 November 2011 (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.