Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Laura Dunn


 * 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--Anthony Bradbury"talk" 19:14, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Laura Dunn

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Lack of independent sourcing establishing her notability as either an actress or a writer Roberticus  talk  15:17, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment: Apparently there are five (5) individuals named "Laura Dunn" on IMDB. Separately, in research sources among secondary sources, I can't isolate precisely which "Laura Dunn" is being discussed, in order to come to an assessment here. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 14:46, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
 * If there's not enough material in the secondary sourcing to confirm a match to the article's subject, doesn't that indicate that none of the 5 satisfy WP:GNG, or that a minimum, the notability of the article's subject is unverifiable as well? Roberticus  talk  21:14, 12 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment: if the page is deleted, this revision could be restored. If not, I'd quite like that revision moved to Laura Dunn (EastEnders). Anemone  Projectors  17:22, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
 * No objection here. Roberticus  talk  21:14, 12 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete unable to verify notability.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:21, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:19, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:19, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:19, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:19, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:19, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:47, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. I must agree with the above. After a basic search, there's no proof of notability. Unless someone can wade through all the spurious hits and find some undiscovered gems, the article should be deleted. --Larry/Traveling_Man (talk) 22:54, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete as nothing actually compelling of better signs for notability and improvements. SwisterTwister   talk  04:21, 16 April 2016 (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.