Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexandra Picatto

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. Noting the significant changes since nomination ~ Amory (u • t • c) 00:04, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alexandra Picatto

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete: as insufficiently former notable actress, now an accountant. Quis separabit? 23:43, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 00:20, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 00:20, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Lonehexagon (talk) 01:45, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notoriety is not temporary per WP:NOTTEMPORARY. This actress easily passes WP:NACTOR for "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." According to her article, she's had at least 10 named roles for shows or movies that are notable enough to have Wikipedia articles. Lonehexagon (talk) 01:45, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Where are the reliable sources? If the roles were significant, then people would write about them. Please read and follow WP:GNG when arguing at AfD.104.163.147.121 (talk) 09:44, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the reliable sources to the article. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:54, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete This biography of a living person lacks even 1 reliable source, so everything in the article is in violation of our guidelines on biogrpahies of living people, so the article has to be deleted to comply with guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:01, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete an online search turns up diddly-squat. No notability whatsoever.104.163.147.121 (talk) 09:44, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep found plenty of reliable sources which I added to the article. She was profiled in the news and as Lonehexagon pointed out, she's had multiple named roles in TV shows, with Kidsongs and the ~~FBI show~~ being her largest roles. Passes NACTOR and GNG Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:54, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per GNG. Hmlarson (talk) 19:11, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per the reliable sources added by Megalibrarygirl passes WP:GNG. These days so much press and periodical coverage is behind paywalls that a google search is in no way sufficient to determine notability Atlantic306 (talk) 19:14, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Megalibrarygirl has shown with her improvements this article clearly passes the notability guidelines. Dream Focus 13:40, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Now passes GNG. Philafrenzy (talk) 18:50, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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.