Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amelia Sefton

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. Majorly (hot!) 11:27, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Amelia Sefton

Amelia Sefton (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Non-notable. Vanity entry Summertimez 09:32, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

• Possible smerge. Young actress whose only credited role I could find was a minor character on an admittedly well-established soap opera. So far, the character appears to have only appeared once. If that qualifies for an entry in List of Emmerdale characters, the character and actress could be included. No prejudice against recreation following wider career visibility in future. Serpent's Choice 11:01, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
• Comment There is no verifiable information about this person. Just a couple of local newspaper articles that do little else other than suggest that she had a very small part in this soap. There is no mention of her on the ITV Emmerdale site or even IMDB.Summertimez 13:56, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't go that far, and can come up with some verification of her existence and her Emmerdale role. But its almost all trivial,[1] and when its not, it still isn't substantive.[2] Again, I don't know the standards for inclusion in the Emmerdale characters list, but assuming they are low enough, she could get the standard one line there, and if her career continues, may have the potential for an article at a later date. I certainly agree that there are not grounds for her own article at this time under WP:N, WP:BIO, WP:CRYSTAL, et al. Serpent's Choice 14:24, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete The link to the agent's website is blatant advertising Summertimez 18:06, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete There are no grounds for stating this is a vanity project. If it was then there would undoubtably be more information. However, as it stands the subject doesn't pass any WP:BIO criteria and I see no reason to make an exception to the rule. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 16:51, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Non Notable. --Loostick 21:11, 28 April 2007 (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.