Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cindy Sampson (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 keep. no arguments for deletion MINUS the nom JForget 00:38, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cindy Sampson

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

Its been 7 months since this was last discussed and there are still no reliable sources out there. Google is a bunch on unreliable sites, google news [1] has 3 hits none of which discuss her in any detail, and google books appears to be someone else. So we still have nothing verifiable about her. Her best part is a made for TV movie and I am not persuaded that we will ever be able to produce an article that is a proper BLP. Fails V, GNG, BIO and BLP Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:26, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Invalid GNews search, which covers only the last 30 days. Recurring roles in multiple TV series. No reason to delete in haste, even though nonprint sources may be difficult to turn up quickly. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:44, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Did you find any sources yet or are we still assessing notability by assertion here? Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:50, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:22, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in agreement with User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. Actor's career seems to push nicely at WP:ENT. I further note that cleanup and improvement through regular editing are surmountable issues and no one having done so is a reason to do it... not delete it. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:36, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
its been over 6 months and still no sources and I see that neither of you are able to offer any either. This is a BLP and it needs to be sourced. Something will turn up is not an acceptable argument if there are no sources out there. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:36, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
While acknowledging the importance of a proper BLP, I do not think my suggestion toward regular editing is any less useful than yours of "delete per WP:NOEFFORT". It is not entirely unverifiable... as her career meeting WP:ENT can at least be verified through the programs and films themselves... nor is it completely unsourced or unsourcable, else it would have been gone. User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz did make a valid point that your proffered G-news search only covered the past 30 days... but yes, the Find sources gives many false positives because of her common name. Barring other coverage, failing GNG does not invalidate meeting ENT... specially if meeting ENT can at least be verified. I suppose I can spend some time sifting theough the 80 news hits[2] and 45,00 G-hits[3] to see which is she. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:30, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. While I understand Spartaz's frustration, past precedent here has been to keep TV personalities with a long record that can be verified, even if they are BLPs without proper sourcing, see e.g., Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Pete_Williams_(journalist). Bearian (talk) 16:37, 28 June 2010 (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.