Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gayle Anderson

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. The consensus here is to Keep this article but that it needs some serious improvement. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:34, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gayle Anderson

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Does not pass WP:GNG. One of the two references is connected to the subject, another is a trivia source. Career section is also under-referenced and thus does not comply with WP:BLP. A09 (talk) 12:56, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Women. A09 (talk) 12:56, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The whole article is supported with two sources only which, I agree, would be scarce even for a general article but the requirements for WP:BLP are even stricter and prescribe sufficient media coverage and secondary sources to prove their notability.--Rodgers V (talk) 13:26, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: @Rodgers V: What do you think about #1 of WP:ANYBIO as subject got 3 Emmys. A09 (talk) 15:13, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:27, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note for researchers, especially on the Miami side: she was known as Gail, not Gayle, in Miami. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 17:15, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, barely, but the unsourced material needs to be removed. I think the content here Gayle Anderson#Awards and recognition passes the line. // Timothy :: talk 03:24, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:15, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but recommending that editors consider a WP:TNT. I personally think the article has potential given the awards nomination. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 00:08, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep only because she has won Emmys, but the article is in dire need of work. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 00:49, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:36, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per editors above and per WP:ANYBIO with her Emmy awards. Shout out to Timothy for TNTing the unreferenced material here. Nomader (talk) 13:13, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per above comments; a simple search on the Emmys website confirms her award (e.g. here).
Straughn (talk) 20:25, 13 April 2023 (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.