Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lindsey Sporrer (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.  MBisanz  talk 16:51, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Lindsey Sporrer
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Delete and Salt, as not only considering the 2015 AfD which was Delete, but there's literally no substance from the listed filmography, see how the longest is only 4 episodes of 1 TV series; there's literally nothing to suggest better at all. SwisterTwister  talk  20:37, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
 * This article is in a worse state than at the previous AFD. However it is different. Note there are no references there that show notability. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:01, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:36, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:36, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:36, 4 November 2016 (UTC)


 * tentative keep per potential in-depth coverage found through due diligence which needs further researching suggesting that WP:BIO may be met.  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 09:30, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete I nominated this article for deletion last time. The new article is no better than the first. Still fails WP:NACTOR. --Jersey92 (talk) 16:49, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
 * It's fine that you believe so and nominated it previously, and is is definitely sad that the new version has not benefited from possible editorial attention, but even for a poor article, guideline WP:NACTOR is not the final word nor the only means by which we may determine notability. Just sayin'.  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 04:37, 5 November 2016 (UTC).
 * I should have written "fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG". Articles about Blake Shelton being seen with her while he was married to Miranda Lambert do not establish notability for a separate article.--Jersey92 (talk) 15:27, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, per policy and guideline a source needs not be solely about a topic being sourced just so long as the topic is being spoken of directly to support what an article shares. IMHO they need an open-minded look.  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 22:31, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 14:50, 7 November 2016 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 12:35, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
 * There does not appear to be "significant coverage" for this subject as described in WP:GNG.--Jersey92 (talk) 14:47, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for again repeating your stance, but per policy and guideline a source needs not be solely about a topic being sourced just so long as the topic is being spoken of directly to support what an article shares, and the GNG is not the "only" means we may use to determine inclusion. IMHO the available unused sources need an open-minded look.  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 06:41, 19 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete -- A7 material. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:54, 19 November 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.