Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sandra Dee Robinson

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. General consensus to keep. (non-admin closure) SSTflyer 07:53, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sandra Dee Robinson

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

Spam of a non-notable person by a series of COI editors. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:17, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete one time beauty contestant with only a single role in a soap opera, it could pass despite not assert other notability. If all else fails, I'd say this article is as good as purged considering it's been created by a COI editor or at least this will set an example to what happen to paid editing. I would not object to a recreation though. Donnie Park (talk) 01:34, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per sourcing, per WP:GNG. Beauty queen and a role in a soap opera is notable.BabbaQ (talk) 17:07, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:39, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:39, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:39, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:39, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:39, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A mention here and in-depth here, as soap opera star I assume there's much more stuff on her, will stop searching.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:19, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tomwsulcer - I'm unsure if "sheknows.com" is a reliable source. It appears that articles are written by "the community". That would usually put the site in the same category as HuffPost where articles are judged on the reputation of the individual authors. I don't find anything at the RS Noticeboard about it, so it's a judgment call here. There is no info on the site about the author of the article (which is billed as an interview). I'm skeptical that it is RS. LaMona (talk) 17:23, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the Nat Geo source is a blog that doesn't appear to have editorial control (i.e. not a WP:NEWSBLOG) and was written by Robinson's colleague. Independence is definitely questionable and as you elude to yourself, this was only an extremely brief mention. SmartSE (talk) 17:32, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as passes WP:NACTOR for multiple television roles, also beauty queen as an extra consideration, article can be rewritten if need be for neutrality.Atlantic306 (talk) 15:36, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a WP:GNG pass, per BabbaQ and Tomwsulcer. Ejgreen77 (talk) 10:56, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't find any reliable sources about her (if others can find them, I can reconsider, but my search failed). The references in the article are her own show and one deadlink to TV Guide, which probably wouldn't have provided much anyway. So this appears to fail GNG, needing at least a some third-party, reliable sources that are substantially about her. LaMona (talk) 21:24, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as simply still not convincing and, perhaps too soon because of it, for any solid convincing signs of better notability and improvements. SwisterTwister talk 21:52, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Omni Flames ^{let's talk about it} 04:21, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Article meets WP:GNG. Could use clean-up to minimize promotional tone, not deletion. Hmlarson (talk) 18:08, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Coment to keepers She may have legitimately won a beauty contest or appeared in a soap opera but the problem you all seem to ignore is the quality of the sources or lack of. This is what you are ignoring. Donnie Park (talk) 00:00, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: GNG doesn't require that the article be particularly well-written, it only requires adequate indicia of notability. That's met. We have dozens of pornstar articles with less notability than this. Soaps aren't Oscar territory, but it's enough. Montanabw ^(talk) 22:30, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the subject crosses the verifiability and notability threshold. Searches may be complicated by the fact that in her professional career she has been credited as "Sandra Ferguson", "Sandra Reinhardt", "Sandra Ferguson Reinhardt", "Sandra Robinson", and "Sandra Dee Robinson" (and other variants). Eight years as a major player on a network soap opera plus long recurring roles on several others drew sufficient press notice to meet the standards and I've added a few of these sources to the article. - Dravecky (talk) 07:13, 21 April 2016 (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.