Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sara Damergi (2nd nomination)

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--Ymblanter (talk) 07:38, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sara Damergi

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

A smattering of poxy roles adding up to insufficient evidence of notability. Laun chba ller 00:55, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I couldn't find anything by way of significant coverage in reliable sources. Good grief the commentary in the last AFD was horrifically bad-faith. I'm glad we've moved on since 2007 when new editors had deletion nominations carpet-bombed simply because they were new.
WP:BITE much? Anyway, the pro-delete commentary there still basically applies today and the nomination here seems spot-on. St★lwart¹¹¹ 01:27, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Article really should've been deleted about 7 years ago. Both nominations were correct and I agree with
WP:AGF of new editors, too.--Mr. Guye (talk) 04:06, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:44, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:44, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:44, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete --
WP:NTEMP says "brief bursts of news coverage may not be sufficient signs of notability, while sustained coverage would be". I think what happened in the last AfD is that at that moment in time Ms Damergi was on a popular show and recentism took hold. Since then her career has not taken off -- there is no "sustained coverage". In addition, we can look back now with the benefit of time passed and realize that her brief peak of notability was not high. —Noah 07:07, 9 February 2015 (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.