Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MeeWha Alana Lee


 * 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 keep. Liz Read! Talk! 00:44, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

MeeWha Alana Lee

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:NACTOR. Artist who became actor but coverage doesn't support either. Potentially notable.  scope_creep Talk  17:54, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Visual arts, South Korea,  and United States of America. North America1000 18:03, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:49, 6 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Coverage for both artist and actor careers are clearly cited in the article. Not really clear on how this got marked for deletion since this individual has a title role in a Sam Raimi produced movie as well as many other well-cited roles specifically listed in the article. Artist career cited sources also show evidence of widespread activity in visual art in gallery, academic and corporate settings with awards won. Hyungsubshim (talk) 18:48, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I vote keep. In addition, I concur with all the points clearly articulated by @Hyungsubshim to retain the article. Shoebox911 (talk) 14:58, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

This is frankly laughable. In a matter of weeks this article was accepted by a reviewer who clearly checked it for notability to being marked for deletion. Seems like another article found by a deletionist. FourPaws (talk) 03:06, 8 July 2022 (UTC)


 * @FourPaws Getting through AFC is not a guarantee that the subject of an article is notable and it certainly does not make a page exempt from a deletion nomination - some of our highest volume AFC reviewers work on the basis of "an accepted article should have a 50% chance of surviving an immediate AFD nomination". Instead of attacking other editors and making baseless comments about the nomination being "laughable" how about clearly explaining why this person passes WP:NBASIC WP:NARTIST or WP:NACTOR and what sources support them passing. 163.1.15.238 (talk) 14:11, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I was just expressing an opinion, Mr. Random IP Address. I'm not sure how I'm "attacking" editors when I spoke in such broad terms undirected at anyone particular. Other than abusing the English language and expressing severe intolerance to other opinions I think you're demonstrating a more damaging appearance. Again, just my own opinion, feel free to believe otherwise. I didn't mean to poke a nerve there. I'm sorry I used an adjective you disapproved of. Regardless, I say Keep by default since no one has given a counter argument. FourPaws (talk) 19:05, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:36, 13 July 2022 (UTC) Relisting comment: policy based input would be helpful Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star   Mississippi  01:40, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep, plenty of sources, and per discussion. Agreed that it shouldn't have been nommed, but doing so does call attention to it for fixes. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:32, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
 * So there is a lot of them, so that means they are notable. I don't think so. I'll examine the sources and show what appears on WP:BEFORE.   scope_creep Talk  04:37, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * 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.