Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sharon L Bailey

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. No references, no Google references. seicer | talk | contribs 13:24, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sharon L Bailey

The article was originally proded by User:THEN WHO WAS PHONE? [1] in which the editor who created (User:Boaf123) the article removed it[2], which is why I've taken this to an AfD. The article makes a number of claims which should be easy to verify however Google doesn't even show this person (Only shows a Sharon Bailey who is in the American Jazz industry). This article could possibly be a hoax (Since the non-web sources can be made up) or she's just not notable in the Australian television industry that no media or entertainment websites have reports about her. Bidgee (talk) 01:47, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. —Bidgee (talk) 01:51, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Bidgee (talk) 01:51, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —Bidgee (talk) 01:55, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No google hits imo = Delete. ~~Also the only hit I can find is here but imdb is user submitted so that isnt enough alone to justify her existence let alone noability.~~ §hawn poo 05:07, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Not the same person. According to that site's page you've linked to is a Sharron K. Bailey (US actress) not the "so called" Australian television actress Sharon L. Bailey. Bidgee (talk) 05:23, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Well there goes the little proof that this article had §hawn poo 05:33, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, seems awfully hoaxy. Willing to change my mind if solid evidence can be produced that this person exists and that she's had notable roles on TV. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:54, 8 March 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Delete, unverifiable and likely hoax. NawlinWiki (talk) 12:02, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- I added a CSD G3 tag as I just discovered hoaxs are defined under WP:CSD#G3 now. Lets see what happens §hawn poo 16:24, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the G3 speedy tag per Wikipedia:CSD#Non-criteria. Please let the AfD run its course so that it can be shown that time was given for proper examination and consensus. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 16:59, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Will do but please note for future use CSD criteria states this: Hoaxes:If even remotely plausible, a suspected hoax article should be subjected to further scrutiny in a wider forum. Note that "blatant and obvious hoaxes and misinformation" are subject to speedy deletion as vandalism. §hawn poo 17:15, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This does not fall under the definition of 'completely implausible', so it is proper that it receives the wider scrutiny in this forum. If it were obvious then no one would have used the words 'possibly', 'seems' or 'likely'-- zzuuzz ^(talk) 17:27, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No valid independent references can be sourced. Likely hoax, fails WP:VERIFY. WWGB (talk) 22:39, 8 March 2009 (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.