Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paige Moss


 * 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.   A rbitrarily 0   ( talk ) 19:17, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Paige Moss

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Trivial roles, no secondary sources. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 18:30, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete non-notable Dreamspy (talk) 18:51, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Change to Keep in view of the work done on the article. Dreamspy (talk) 09:17, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete as article fails notability criteria for actors. Armbrust  Talk  Contribs  09:15, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:45, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Solid Keep While the nominator's concerns are reflected in the article's easily addressable (former) current state, and with respects to those above... a little WP:AFTER goes a long way. This individual's career does indeed surpass the notability criteria for actors and the person is covered directly and in detail in multiple reliable sources.  There is a quite reasonable presumption of notability for her named roles in 10 different films and recurring or major support roles in numerous television prductions... such as she playing Tara Marks in 7 episodes of Beverly Hills, 90210 or as Hayley Cartwright in 2 episodes of Baywatch Nights, or as Veruca in 3 episodes of Buffy the Vampire Slayer, or as the lead Maddy O'Neil in 20 episodes of It's All Relative... and many, many more.  Yes... WP:ENT is met, as well as WP:GNG.  While fixing up an improvable article might take a little work, a lack of overdue effort is not a proper rationale for deletion.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 21:06, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep as per Schmidt's note above. Nymf hideliho! 21:24, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Speedy not quite applicable, as the nominator was simply addressing its then current state. Article is now undergoing expansion and improvement.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 22:31, 11 September 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.