- 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. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 17:31, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Robbi Morgan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
Looks to be a bit-actor who lacks the required non-trivial coverage from reliable third party publications. JBsupreme (talk) 03:43, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete--I agree, there's not enough here. Drmies (talk) 04:44, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- RayAYang (talk) 04:52, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:13, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]- Delete for now, but I could be convinced if the author produces good arguments to the contrary.JJJ999 (talk) 01:34, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep WP:RS does not mandate that sources have to be in-depth, though it is preferred. Acceptable also are less infusive multiple confirmations that offer WP:V of notability assertions. Google News shows brief coverage in the Los Angeles Times, the Daily Review, the Cedar Rapids Gazette, etc... on top of the scads of WP:V found with a generic google search. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q.
- Delete - does not pass Wikipedia:BIO#Entertainers and the passing mentions in the Google news and general Google searches (which appear to be referencing at least three if not more different Robbi Morgans) do not rise to the level required by WP:RS and WP:N. Otto4711 (talk) 19:41, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Granted, my cursory search was quick. I'll do a deeper search and see what I can come up with. If I cannot seperate the wheat from the chafe, I'll be glad to change my opinion. I must grant that this actress, though acting from age 10, does not really seem to have done very much at all. Maybe there is a pearl in this oyster. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 22:52, 19 October 2008 (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.