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.
I'm pretty sure you did not mean that she meets NACTOR#3 because that criterion is Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment. I'm ready to discuss notability all you want but let's be reasonable here: she doesn't even come close to NACTOR#3.
Pichpich (
talk)
19:38, 27 July 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete. No sign of any significant roles in notable productions. No sign of anything that is unique, prolific or innovative. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources.
duffbeerforme (
talk)
12:50, 22 July 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete a possibly prolific but non-notable actress; minor roles do not encyclopedic notability make. For this reason I feel the subject does not meet
WP:NACTOR, as reliable sources have not been cited that deem her contributions to acting innovative or significant, and while coverage does exist it is mostly concerned with films the subject had a role in and not about Leucas herself, so even GNG could be failed if one wished to push the issue. It should also be noted that (per
Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sathish1127) the article was created by a now-blocked editor as part of a paid editing sockfarm, which while not explicitly a reason for deletion should be noted.--
SamHolt6 (
talk)
23:49, 26 July 2018 (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.
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.
I'm pretty sure you did not mean that she meets NACTOR#3 because that criterion is Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment. I'm ready to discuss notability all you want but let's be reasonable here: she doesn't even come close to NACTOR#3.
Pichpich (
talk)
19:38, 27 July 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete. No sign of any significant roles in notable productions. No sign of anything that is unique, prolific or innovative. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources.
duffbeerforme (
talk)
12:50, 22 July 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete a possibly prolific but non-notable actress; minor roles do not encyclopedic notability make. For this reason I feel the subject does not meet
WP:NACTOR, as reliable sources have not been cited that deem her contributions to acting innovative or significant, and while coverage does exist it is mostly concerned with films the subject had a role in and not about Leucas herself, so even GNG could be failed if one wished to push the issue. It should also be noted that (per
Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sathish1127) the article was created by a now-blocked editor as part of a paid editing sockfarm, which while not explicitly a reason for deletion should be noted.--
SamHolt6 (
talk)
23:49, 26 July 2018 (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.