Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Briana Roy (actress)

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. Sandstein 10:52, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Briana Roy (actress)

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

Promotion from a paid spammer created using a block evading sockpuppet. No substantial edits by others. Textbook G5 speedy deletion but declined. Keeping this spam empowers paid promotion and encouraged the misuse of sockpuppets and erodes Wikipedias falling credibility. Non notable individual. Lacks multiple significant parts in notable productions. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:32, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 12:26, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 12:28, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 12:28, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 12:28, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 12:28, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete "Too soon" per Wilipedia standards. FloridaArmy (talk) 14:53, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable actress. L3X1 (distænt write) 15:15, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with the sockpuppet origins of this article. But then I thought that the subject and information was potentially notable. However one small role in one file is probably not notable. See I agree with delete. Seaweed (talk) 16:55, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All the coverage is routine promotional stuff, there is no significant coverage by reliable sources, so it fails gng.Jacona (talk) 21:57, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete she is 12. As I have said many times, we need to have higher standards for notability and to protect privacy for minors than for adults. She falls far below the threshold of multiple significant roles in notable productions, so a deletion of the article is in order.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:52, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Does not pass WP:NACTOR, and I don't see enough in-depth coverage from independent reliable sources to show she passes WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:13, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - We can’t reward sock puppets. Billhpike (talk) 16:11, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per SOCK stuff as aswell as per TOOSOON, –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 12:59, 30 December 2017 (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.