Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anne Evanoff

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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 17:05, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Anne Evanoff (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Despite the very long article, she is not remotely notable, fails GNG. This is a retired elementary school teacher/principal who has some credits in short films ( IMDB), and scant reliable source coverage. Eostrix  (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 17:00, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Eostrix  (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 17:00, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Eostrix  (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 17:00, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Eostrix  (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 17:00, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Eostrix  (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 17:00, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete What an astonishing article, almost like a hoax or something, although I guess it's just an overinflated vanity piece... Can't see anything to suggest notability. None of the so-called sources are even close to RS (and clearly for a reason). --DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:33, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  @DoubleGrazing: I don't suspect this is a hoax, though it may be more than a bit embellished. She probably did do drama in high school. She probably did have a teaching career. And she probably appeared in the listed credits. However none of it is particularly significant GNG wise.--Eostrix  (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 17:44, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete the filmography credits for "background" on a half dozen films (that's where you get paid to stand in the background of the shot) sort of says it all. GNG fail.--- Possibly (talk) 17:34, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This also resembles paid editing; the article creator's 11th edit was Bryant Lazaro; Anne Evanoff was their 12th edit. --- Possibly (talk) 17:40, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:56, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - The subject of the article does not meet WP:GNG nor WP:NACTOR criteria. It does seem like either UPE or some other type of COI based on the intricate details (some of which have now been removed.) I don't think it's a hoax, but she is not notable. Netherzone (talk) 20:09, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:BASIC due to a lack of significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources; also per WP:NACTOR, there is no indication of significant roles in multiple notable productions or other critera. Beccaynr (talk) 00:26, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Does not meet WP:NACTOR and has no RS coverage. Heave-ho! --Kbabej (talk) 00:44, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per everyone voted "delete". 2001:569:74D2:A800:F48D:35ED:C52C:B178 (talk) 01:45, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. With typical unsourced sentences like "Evanoff graduated from Timmins High and Vocational School as an Ontario Scholar and was considered an outstanding student by her teachers", this is so homeopathically diluted with nothingness that no trace of notability can be seen, if ever there was one. I found this through the academic deletion list and certainly her highest academic accomplishment (serving as an elementary school principal) is not enough for notability barring exceptional sourcing, not present here. There may be more on the acting side but if so it is far from obvious. And the pattern of topics in the article creator's first edits is definitely concerning, enough to cast doubt on their other edits. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:30, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment She almost seems notable as a provincial curriculum creator/educational functionary in the government. The article doesn't really focus on that part of it and is so poorly sourced...Oaktree b (talk) 14:54, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete WP:G11. Oh my word. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 00:06, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete appears to be a vanity page, not notable. --Ashleyyoursmile! 13:14, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Definitely fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTRESS. She lacks multiple significant roles. -- LACaliNYC✉ 22:10, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Coverage is weak & Non notable person. Fail GNG. TheDreamBoat (talk) 14:16, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom Devokewater 11:04, 18 March 2021 (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.