Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Natalie Paige Bentley
- 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. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:18, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Natalie Paige Bentley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Promotional bio for ex-model turned movie director whose band article was recently AFDed. The only ghits I can find are listings of the 'City of Motherly Love' film, with no reliable third-party reviews, which would fail WP:NFILMS. The rest are self-generated content, including press releases mirrored in local news station websites. The notability for her, her work or her production company just isn't there, whether we look at basic WP:GNG or WP:CREATIVE. §FreeRangeFrog 22:54, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Puff piece, failsWP:BIO --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 20:36, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:33, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:33, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No evidence of popular success or notability, mostly self-promotion as stands and would become empty of contents without self- or near self-citations.
- Delete Although she has appeared on MTV and other ventures, her success or notability is not showcased. I am leaning to believe that this accomplishments are merely occasional and with no impact in time, which is somewhat needed to meet WP:BIO. Additionally, seems that we have only situational coverage of her actions as part of a major report, meaning that she's not the main point of discussion in the sources placed on the article, and those that could have been found. — ΛΧΣ21™ 21:32, 2 December 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.