Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lilah Richcreek


 * 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. slakr \ talk / 12:39, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Lilah Richcreek

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Poorly referenced article - one acceptable source, one unacceptable blog and an IMDb page. A Google search turns up little to put Ms. Richcreek on the right side of WP:BIO. And Adoil Descended (talk) 13:58, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete One sentence and it fails WP:GNG this one is a no brainer.--Jeffrd10 (talk) 14:04, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:43, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:43, 22 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete 1, 2, 3, 4, Lilah's article here no more BlueSalix (talk) 19:51, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Don't Delete! One source from The Hollywood Reporter mentions her name clearly, and the refined sentence of the page now stands as a more acceptable revision of this page. More information was added to comply with the encyclopedic rules, and as it stands it appears to be a stub. I don't believe the article should be deleted because The Hollywood Reporter is a nationally reliable third-party source; I contest deletion to the fullest extent perceivable, and will do anything to keep this article up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.139.19.100 (talk) 20:43, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000(talk) 08:51, 30 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete - a single sentence, with no obvious means of being able to expand it via better sources, means at best I can say she doesn't deserve an article now. As for "The Hollywood Reporter is a nationally reliable third-party source", it looks to be as reliable as The Sun from my point of view ie: where accurate neutral reporting of facts takes very much a back seat to gossip and sensationalism. Ritchie333  (talk)  (cont)   11:12, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Don't Delete The article has been updated and, as far as I can see, a one-sentence biography is known to be a stub. The desire to delete this article seems to stem from dislike of the person itself; biased. The Hollywood Reporter felt her to be important enough to mention, the writer of the article thereof from the reliable source, so sensationalism is not much of an argument when the fact remains that it's a notable source. One notable source is all it takes to be notable, even if that notability is very small, the sources are what Wikipedia deems as reliable. People keep nitpicking at every detail possible here, but it's a can of worms just being opened. One source, a stub article, request for external notability; done. There's no point I can see in wanting this deleted; simply mark up the notability citation, keep as a stub, and if there's no further improvement in this article over time it may then be appropriately requested for deletion. As of now this is simply biased against this person. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.139.19.173 (talk) 21:29, 1 February 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.