Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abbey DiGregorio
per Nom: We have policies that are actually community consensus mandates and the criteria is even higher for 's. It might just be an accident or some attempt to prove that the state of an article is irrelevant, but we have sourcing criteria for multiple reasons. We also have essays like  and ey (essays on the deletion policy) for a reason. They are just essays but carry weight of community consensus. A problem is that when material is |contested, along with notability because there are |no sources, "policy" gives a mandate concerning the |burden of |proof that are all part of the ''"Responsibility for providing citations"''. When IMDb is used as an only source there are possible  issues. Just adding some sources to the talk page does not in any way cover the policies and guidelines concerning an unsourced BLP. Such things as  are important but pretty hard to follow when there are zero sources. |Ignoring the rules is a possible rationale but requires |consensus that inclusion is an improvement to the encyclopedia, in spite of policies and guidelines, and a closing admin will likely have to agree. If others think the article worth "saving" then ping me if improvements are applied and I may agree. My reasoning is that the extra sources above does not provide substance to prevent this from being a |pseudo biography
— User:Otr500, 02:30, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
Stance: delete
Cited policy: WP:BLP||WP:SAVE||WP:H||WP:CHALLENGE||:WP:UNSOURCED||:WP:BURDEN||:WP:PROVIT||WP:YTCOPYRIGHT||WP:CITE||WP:IGNORE||WP:PSEUDO||WP:consensus (Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons)