Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gruschenka Stevens


 * 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. ✗ plicit  23:48, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Gruschenka Stevens

 * – ( View AfD View log )

BLP without proper references Rathfelder (talk) 17:48, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 17:48, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 17:48, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 17:48, 20 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment. See the corresponding article in German at de:Gruschenka Stevens Eastmain (talk • contribs) 18:34, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * No actual references there either.Rathfelder (talk) 20:10, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:42, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:42, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:42, 20 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Weak delete, autobiography, many minor roles, no clear indication that WP:NACTOR is met, not much significant coverage. This is better than nothing, though. Does anyone have the book? —Kusma (talk) 12:46, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak delete per WP:TNT. I think she's had enough roles of significance to pass criteria 1 of WP:NACTOR. However, it's basically an unsourced BLP that is very poorly constructed. If someone really wants to put in the effort to source and re-write it I'd be fine with keeping it, but as it is deletion is the better option.4meter4 (talk) 19:51, 26 September 2021 (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.