Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michele Boyd


 * 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. -- Cirt (talk) 07:13, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Michele Boyd

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Per the same reasons as at Articles for deletion/Rileah Vanderbilt, after performing an extensive Google search I found less relevant results (Dana Michele Boyd popped up after the first 5 pages) and failed to find any reliable sources. — Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм  •  Champagne?  • 9:24pm •  10:24, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think this qualifies for deletion. She's an actress in some notable shows. IMDB is not a reliable source, but it does point to some reliable sources: the shows themselves. If all else fails, the article can point to the credits of the shows themselves. Remco47 (talk) 14:25, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Pointing to the show's credits is not a reliable third-party source, sources used on an article that are affiliated with said subject are frowned upon. 27.32.62.87 (talk) 11:11, 16 October 2010 (UTC) — 27.32.62.87 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Actually, a show's credits are perfectly fine for verification that the actor was in those productions.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 06:45, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 09:45, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:09, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:ENT. The article asserts and sources that she has had significant roles in multiple notable productions.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 06:45, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - be that as it may, no other reliable sources can be found and that is the reason why it's here at AFD. — Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм  •  Champagne?  • 2:27pm •  03:27, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Keep: Not a strong case of notability, but she's done enough.--Milowent • talkblp-r 05:32, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. While adding better sources will clearly improve the article, preponderance of the evidence shows that she has been involved in enough notable productions per WP:ENT. Doczilla  STOMP! 18:57, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak keep - actually, when this was created, there was a conflict of interest editing by the subject or her agent. However, it now appears that she's notable enough. Bearian (talk) 23:55, 27 October 2010 (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.