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. Stifle (talk) 10:33, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nadine Heimann

[edit]

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

This article was tagged as an unsourced WP:BLP article in July 2009. Since that time no references have been added. I nominated it for WP:PROD for this reason but the tag was removed within an hour by User:WereSpielChequers with the reason "seems notable to me". Icalanise (talk) 01:56, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep According to imdb she now seems to be called "Nadine Nicole" which incidentally may be a reason to move the article to Nadine Nicole. She seems to have been a guest star in a couple of series episodes which might just get her past the notability bar. Travelbird (talk) 09:24, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:31, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:42, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Its ok to prod an old unreferenced BLP as not notable or even verifiable, but prodding it simply for being unreferenced (if it was created before March 18, 2010) is not appropriate. The actress is borderline, but she seems notable enough for inclusion. I have added a ref.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 15:19, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - there are a couple of sources providing significant coverage, but I'm not sure it's quite enough for notability at this time. Agreed that this is a borderline case, though. Robofish (talk) 02:37, 15 February 2011 (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.