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. m.o.p 04:27, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jennifer Lothrop (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

WP:Bio Daffydavid (talk) 05:20, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The subject (J. Lothrop) fails WP:Anybio and WP:ENT. I stumbled on this page during the Wikipedia clean-up drive. Despite extensive searches for references I can't find any. Severe lack of notability would be a good summation.Daffydavid (talk) 07:28, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:21, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:21, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep Nominator has not advanced an argument for deletion. Just pointing to a WP policy without any discussion is insufficient for an AfD nomination. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 21:15, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Fails WP:ENT with no significant coverage. SL93 (talk) 21:43, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep and Procedural Keep for the lacking of a nom's rationale for deletion.--Cavarrone (talk) 23:00, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Original nomination was insufficient but nominator has returned with sufficient argument. Article is highly unlikely to survive a further properly-submitted nomination. Rubiscous (talk) 22:24, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Lothrop is the subject of coverage in one source ([1]) and is mentioned in several others ([2] [3] [4]). But this does not constitute in-depth coverage of the subject. Striking my above support for speedy keep with an appropriate rationale. Thanks to Daffydavid for taking the time to change it. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 02:02, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I find it absolutely amazing that a beautiful woman in the public eye, who has hosted at least 145 episodes of the television series DVD on TV , and whose career can be verified, does not have more actual coverage than we have been able to find. She exists. She has a decent body of work. For the life of me, I simply cannot figure out why she does not have more media coverage. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:28, 7 December 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.