Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paydin LoPachin


 * 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   no consensus. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 05:38, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Paydin LoPachin

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Expired PROD (reason: No reliable sources demonstrating that this person meets the inclusion criteriae, in particular WP:ENTERTAINER) removed before deletion with the mention "Adding Filmography". Unfortunately, it doesn't address the sourcing issue mentioned in the PROD. Google News turns up exactly one source, which might qualify, but the GNG requires several. Google Search only returns trivial or placeholder pages. MLauba (talk) 07:59, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions.  —MLauba (talk) 08:00, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Unequivocally fials WP:ENTERTAINER, unless you consider "Cheerleader #1," "Brody's Next Victim," and "Mary #2" to be significant roles. Pretty girl, though, and I wouldn't be too surprised if she gets notable roles later on in her career. But that's not a matter for this discussion. Nosleep  break my slumber 08:18, 12 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Weak Delete - Has one lead role (Triloquist), WP:ENT requires 2+. Seems to have a minor fan base with a few trivial mentions on the web + hotties semi-article.  ENt requires 'significant following'. Lone news story  reads as a local human interest type story.  In summary, she falls just below the bar.  (It is not unreasonable to think this will change, however we have WP:CRYSTAL). --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:59, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Changing vote to Weak Keep per work done by MichaelQSchmidt. She still only has one notable role, so she fails ENT.  However, she appears to pass the general notability guidelines by being covered in multiple sources in a non-trivial fashion. --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:27, 15 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep as just squeeking past the WP:GNG ("Significant coverage is more than trivial but may be less than exclusive") per her less-than-trivial coverages in genre-specifc reviews ("Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media") for her starring role in Triloquist.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 04:23, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment While the effort of sourcing is impressive, nothing added is anything but trivial coverage, and coverage centered on the character rather than the actress. I'm a bit skeptical this qualifies as "squeeking past the WP:GNG".


 * 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.