Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fatima Robinson

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 keep. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:53, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fatima Robinson

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

All external links listed are primary sources (IMDb doesn't influence notability), article fails to provide any true coverage. MaranoFan (talk) 04:53, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:02, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:02, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:02, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Granted the article is in a sad state but the individual gets some significant press like this NY Times article [1], or this [2] and this [3]. Suggest tagging for cleanup etc... rather than delete.Vrac (talk) 21:16, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note:#2 and #3 are definitely unreliable. NY Times doesn't directly talk about the person and the article still fails to provide sufficient coverage for inclusion. MaranoFan (talk) 13:55, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Are we looking at the same NY Times article? The article in the link I posted is all about her and her choreography, it has biographical information, her name is mentioned 11 times, she is quoted several times, etc... Here is the link again: [4] Vrac (talk) 14:05, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. Major choreographer for film and television. This edit shows that someone removed the article content as unreferenced instead of asking for citations. AfD is for nominating articles that shouldn't exist, not underwritten (well, slashed) articles on notable subjects. --FuriousFreddy (talk) 05:39, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Quickly found & added refs; could another editor please format using the citation templates? --FuriousFreddy (talk) 06:03, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sources found demonstrate notability. --Michig (talk) 07:43, 27 December 2014 (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.