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 no consensus. There's no way to determine consensus with this and I'm not going to relist a third time Valley2city^‽ 03:36, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Annelise Manojlovic[edit]

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

fails WP:ENT and WP:BIO. no significant multiple roles. gnews: [1] and alternate spelling. LibStar (talk) 07:01, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:07, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timotheus Canens (talk) 00:15, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:57, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment. The article is a BLP so a second relist is reasonable.--Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:59, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Eight years playing the same role ought to be enough to pass notability. WP:ENT needs to be refined to recognize that some people are notable for playing a single notable part. - Eastmain (talk) 00:33, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

no you're reinventing the criterion to suit your keep vote. one role does not meet WP:ENT. LibStar (talk) 12:49, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. —LibStar (talk) 12:57, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, WP:ENT is subject to the caveat that "Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included." Wikipedia is chock full of articles about actors who have only had one significant role, as long as its a significant show. (And i'm using OTHERSTUFFEXISTS the proper way in making that observation.)--Milowent (talk) 16:54, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

then this person should meet WP:BIO, which she doesn't. LibStar (talk) 02:16, 6 January 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.