Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nina Arvesen

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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:02, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nina Arvesen

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 21:06, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article is two sentences and documents a non-notable actress with no references. It was larger and full of a lot of unsourced information (see here), but now is only an intro. The overall article fails WP:GNG. Shark96z (talk · contribs) 19:35, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: the article has been expanded since the original nomination, however the info listed still doesn't seem relevant and a large amount of it is either unsourced or its source is unclear... Shark96z (talk · contribs) 05:56, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete She probably fails WP:NACTOR but I notice that a paragraph was removed from her wikipedia article between 2009 here and today. --Artene50 (talk) 00:16, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP. I think Actress Nina Arvesen talent and achievements are enough to keep this article...Here is a list of newspaper references related to actress nina arvesen LINK http://www.genealogybank.com/gbnk/newspapers/?lname=nina&fname=arvesen&kwinc=&kwexc=&formDate=&processingtime=&group= "I personally believe the Wikipedia Article regarding Actress Nina Arvesen should stay on Wikipedia... I feel like everyone should keep an open mind ! Zzspeed (talk) 00:54, 15 July 2012 (UTC) 00:37, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Notability's not a problem, as she seems to meet the WP:GNG: there's what appears to be a copy of an article from Télé Star here: http://santabarbara-online.com/articleNArvesen.htm , which I think qualifies as a reliable source. Google Books also shows her to be the subject of a pictorial feature in the May 1990 Orange Coast Magazine. Google News Archives has an article about her in the September 19, 1988 edition of the Toronto Star, and also in the May 7, 1990 editon of the same paper. More digging in the Google News archives reveals numerous other articles, all with her as their main subject. Combine that coverage with recurring roles in well-known soaps, which meets one of the criteria in WP:NACTOR, and I think the case is clear for keeping the article. The article itself needs a lot of improvement, though. -- The Anome (talk) 11:03, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 12:29, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This person meets WP:BASIC per [1], [2], [3], [4], [5]. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:10, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per The Anome. Inks.LWC (talk) 19:16, 23 July 2012 (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.