Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Denelle Balfour


 * 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. Tawker (talk) 19:12, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Denelle Balfour

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:GNG unreferenced and tagged for notability since 2008. Theroadislong (talk) 22:08, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete Total lack of any sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:36, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete Unsourced "article" with barely any informaion, unworthy of entry into an encyclopedia, which is what Wikipedia is. M.Jormungand (talk) 10:42, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:38, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:39, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:39, 2 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete. Sources inadequate. Agricola44 (talk) 20:25, 2 April 2014 (UTC).
 * Delete for lack of evidence of passing WP:GNG and overly vague annd unverifiable claims of significance ("has won numerous awards"). —David Eppstein (talk) 00:17, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * When it comes to television journalists, there's often a discrepancy between how notable they seem like they should be — "she appears on a television network's national newscast every night, she has to be notable!" — and how many reliable sources are actually available to write a proper article about them with, since they're only very rarely the subject of enough coverage to get past a notability criterion. And, in fact, she isn't even with CTV anymore, having left a few years ago to take a civil service job with the provincial government of Ontario — so not only are suitable sources lacking now, but there's no realistic prospect of improved sources about her emerging in the near future either. No prejudice against future recreation in the unlikely event that somebody can actually find some real sourcing, but this version's an unequivocal delete. Bearcat (talk) 22:49, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete. No indication of notability. Xxanthippe (talk) 11:45, 6 April 2014 (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.