Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chenoa Maxwell

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 no consensus. v/r - T P 00:51, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chenoa Maxwell

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

I added some refs, but I'm not sure if they are reliable sources. The subject does not meet WP:ARTIST, and non-trivial secondary coverage is lacking. Yoninah (talk) 15:42, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —Yoninah (talk) 15:42, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:16, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment if the URL contains "wordpress" that pretty much means unrealible. However, I did find a suitable RS to cite the statement to replace the wordpress one. The questionable Uptown Magazine was replaced by its own source Posh Glam. Added a few other cites as well. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:56, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 13:02, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment Still inadequate discussion to gauge consensus. Relisting one more time hoping to gain eyes. BusterD (talk) 13:04, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I believe that the subject's acting career is sufficiently notable to maintain the article. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:36, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The individual and her works have been the recipient of coverage in independent secondary sources. Squeeks by WP:ENT and WP:GNG. We can let this one remain and grow through normal editing. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:00, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have nothing to say on her career outside photography. As for her career as photographer, she may for all I know be first-rate, but the sources so far adduced for her photography depend on her minor celebrity. When a major source on a photographer is something called "Poshglam", the article is desperate. (Where's the coverage in photography sources?) I have no objection to deletion, though people who know more about TV celebrity than I do will have to consider that part of the article. -- Hoary (talk) 00:29, 16 September 2011 (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.