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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:03, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Natasha Gordon[edit]

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

Contested prod with the rationale that she appears on IMdB. Her roles are trivial and there is zero coverage in any reliable sources independent of the subject. Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NACTOR. J04n(talk page) 00:04, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 00:04, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unable to find significant coverage at reliable independent sources which would demonstrate that she meets WP:NACTOR let alone WP:NOTABILITY -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 19:21, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - An unquestionable failure of the general notability guidelines as well as the specific guidelines for entertainers. An utter waste of AfD's time for a subject that should not have been de-prodded. Tarc (talk) 18:26, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as short career fails WP:ENT and lack of coverage fails WP:GNG. Fails WP:BIO. See WP:TOOSOON#Actors. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:00, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I found one in-depth article regarding her Eastenders role which I've added to the article but unfortunately they still don't appear to come close to WP:ENT. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 18:35, 15 October 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.