Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kristen Hillier
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is the current revision of this page, as edited by MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) at 06:49, 2 February 2022 (Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.
Revision as of 06:49, 2 February 2022 by MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) (Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12))
(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
- 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. Nja247 09:12, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Kristen Hillier[edit]
- Kristen Hillier (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
Someone whose film/TV credits consist only of two roles total, both characters so minor to the plot that they never got names, clearly fails Wikipedia notability requirements. DreamGuy (talk) 23:51, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 00:13, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No significant roles, no significant coverage. decltype (talk) 08:06, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Fails both the general notability criterion (WP:GNG) due to a lack of reliable sources and WP:ENTERTAINER since the roles were all minor. - Mgm|(talk) 09:52, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - no coverage in reliable sources. Searching turns up facebook, linkedin and stuff of that sort. The only reference in the article really is there to support the claim that Everwood is critically acclaimed and makes no mention of Hillier. -- Whpq (talk) 12:43, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Two walk-ons (for that is what they appear to be) in six years does not constitute a pass of WP:ENTERTAINER. Tevildo (talk) 18:21, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete' per nom. --Clay Collier (talk) 06:54, 3 May 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.