Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Danielle Lydon

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. Missvain (talk) 01:39, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Danielle Lydon

[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)

Fails

WP:ENT and no significant coverage. SL93 (talk) 21:58, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 22:00, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 22:00, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:35, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets
SPEAK 23:21, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

That's not how it works - "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." They are not significant roles. SL93 (talk) 00:10, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@KidAd: The most episodes that she was in are 3 episodes in a show and it doesn't matter in that case that the shows are notable. SL93 (talk) 00:12, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Roles do not appear to be significant, and the article includes no information not found on an IMDb page. Would be willing to reconsider if there was any indication of significant coverage. AP1787 (talk) 13:59, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:10, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Bilorv (talk) 19:09, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A look around finds zero amount of significant coverage (or any coverage) in multiple (or one) reliable sources. Simply fails
WP:GNG. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:27, 8 May 2021 (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.