Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elena Stejko

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 consensus is to delete - I am particularly influenced by the fact that a neutral was changed to a delete after the editor tried to clean up the article. Relisting provided no further comments -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 22:31, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Elena Stejko

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

Non-notable actress with only minor parts. Eeekster (talk) 01:05, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Jobbing character actress who also teaches acting, is bordeline fail WP:BIO but could be worth keeping for reference. scope_creep (talk) 2:45, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but that isn't even a remotely valid rationale to retain an article. We have specific policies for retaining articles, starting with general notability, then on to specialized notability guidelines such as WP:ENTERTAINER. She fails both, completely. Tarc (talk) 17:25, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Neutral, leaning towards keep~~ I agree with the nominator, this actress seems minor and non-notable, but the sources are enough to satisfy WP:V. I'd argue that there's enough to satisfy WP:GNG. I'll be cleaning up the article to make it a bit more presentable (regardless of the final decision of this discussion). elektrik SHOOS 07:37, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete After attempting to clean up the article I discovered that one of the sources was completely irrelevant to the context and over half the article has been copied from another page (which the article creator conveniently linked to). Given this there isn't enough to satisfy WP:GNG and I'm forced to change my opinion. elektrik SHOOS 08:00, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Second billing in Russian Snark, but the WP:ENT threshhold is multiple roles. Recreate if more roles come along after this. Tarc (talk) 17:25, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
More roles? Well... she did appear in 2 eisodes of Mercy Peak back in 2001-2002... which predates her award-nominated role in Russian Snark by 8 years... and the article asserts 5 other projects besides these. We need more coverage of her pre-1995 work in Rio de Janeiro with 'Teatro de Banco do Brazil', and of her theater work between 2002 and 2010. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:04, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Appearing in 2 episodes does not qualify as a "significant role" though, and the rest is just speculation. Notability needs to be demonstrated, not just hinted at or presumed. Tarc (talk) 01:12, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, as a named character whose contribution was key to those two episodes, that contribution might be argued as significant to those two episodes... as she was not listed a "nurse number 1" or "lady at mailbox". Her award nomination is another consideration. Like I said above, we do need more. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:34, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:20, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:16, 23 August 2010 (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.