Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Regina Freedman


 * 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 Chris  lk02  Chris Kreider 21:01, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Regina Freedman

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

Questionable failure of CSD:A7 for possible notability of multiple roles. Roles, however, do not assert significance or importance of subject (the actual test, as explicitly stated in A7); notability does not appear to be asserted, as "appeared" is not, say, "starred"; no discussion of roles, no references provided, etc. ЭLСОВВОLД  talk 02:18, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions.   —Eastmain (talk) 02:56, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions.   —Eastmain (talk) 02:56, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. The article is a stub and could do with more references. But the sum of the appearances seems to indicate notability. --Eastmain (talk) 03:01, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * This may not be the correct forum, but are you actually a sysop? If not, can you decline a speedy? ЭLСОВВОLД  talk 03:04, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Reply: No, I am not an admin. Anyone other than an article's creator is permitted to remove a speedy tag. --Eastmain (talk) 03:56, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I learned something today. You may wish to familiarize yourself with the criteria before taking such action in the future.  ЭLСОВВОLД  talk 04:12, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * In fact, Eastmain has a good understanding of the criteria. A "questionable failure of A7" is a failure of A7. Speedy is only for the unquestionable deletions. I have no opinion on whether the roles are important, but it was certainly enough to assert them. DGG (talk) 05:35, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Let's not focus on my wording, but on policy. I added "questionable" as nice way of saying "inappropriate and entirely wrong".  Misinterpretation of the criterion does not a legitimate failure make.  ЭLСОВВОLД  talk 12:41, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The fact that there's a keep !vote here already indicates to me that it would have been inappropriate to speedily delete the article. Speedy deletion is only for those cases that are so obvious that there is no need to waste everyone's time with a debate. As with DGG, I express no opinion at this time on whether the article should actually be kept, but I think a full debate is appropriate. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:44, 17 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. A bunch of small roles on tv shows. fails WP:BIO. -- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 05:38, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Gary King (talk) 09:25, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Seeing the Special:Whatlinkshere/Regina Freedman, there are only two pages in the main namespace and both are about minor characters of the same TV show. A person who made several cameos in a few TV series is definitely not worth its own Wikipedia entry. Admiral Norton (talk) 16:10, 25 February 2008 (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.