Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Isidra Vega (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 delete. The one person arguing to keep, failed to give any specific examples of sources which meet WP:NACTOR -- RoySmith (talk) 17:19, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Isidra Vega

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

An actress that doesn't pass nactor. According to imdb her films were low budget and she had small parts. The refs in the article where I could see them don't support notability. Tagged for notability since 2016. Szzuk (talk) 16:26, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NACTOR. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 18:02, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:49, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:49, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:50, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:51, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Clearly fails the WP:GNG and WP:NACTRESS. -- LACaliNYC ✉ 21:53, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She's had multiple roles, been written up in multiple RS, see sources in the article. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 23:07, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. Antonio Enthusiastic freak Martin (dilo aqui!) 04:52, 15 January, 2019 (UTC)
Delete because subject fails WP:NACTOR. The sources cited as well as others one could fish online are not about the subject per se and do not come near enough in establishing notability. Irrespective of a cinephile's appreciation of the subject's work (as I happen to have) does not translate in Wikipedia articles. There are other media for cinephiles, where every cinema-related detail is worthy of inclusion. Wikipedia is not like that. Wikipedia is not an indisxcriminate listing of information. -The Gnome (talk) 11:46, 20 January 2019 (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.