- 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 23:51, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Cat Roberts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Primary sourced promotion for non notableacademic / actress. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. No good roles for nactor. Award is not major. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:04, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, and Arizona. Shellwood (talk) 11:08, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
Comment: Arguably notable as a scholar. What do folks think? Bearian (talk) 18:42, 11 June 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, that would be her most likely claim to notability. Some decent citation numbers but also down in a cast of many for the best of them. duffbeerforme (talk) 04:29, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
- Comment Even if she is notable as a scholar, the entire article is about her acting (which I will not evaluate). DaffodilOcean (talk) 13:21, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
- Delete softly per WP:TNT, or Draftify, per above discussion. Bearian (talk) 16:09, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
- 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.