Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rebecca Kiser

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--

^"talk" 12:22, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Rebecca Kiser

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

Actress with very questionable notability, none of her films seem to be that notable yet either Wgolf (talk) 18:36, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Google News only brings up a pastor with the same name, Can't be arsed to search Google Books although I won't be surprised if there's nothing there anyway, Fails NACTOR & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 19:15, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I put it as a BLP prod over a year ago but it didn't go through as the IMDB was technically a ref, I should of considered a AFD then! Wgolf (talk) 19:33, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Technically the IMDB link is considered a source so I prod wouldn't of worked unfortunately, Meh late's better than never :). –Davey2010^Talk 19:46, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you're mistaken: From

WP:BLPPROD

:

A common source of confusion in application is the different treatment of presence of sources for placement of the tag, versus removal of the tag. The requirements can be summed up as: Only add a BLPPROD if there are no sources in any form that name the subject, but once (properly) placed, it can only be removed if a reliable source is added.

As

WP:USERGENERATED uses IMDb as an example of an unreliable source, the tag should not have been removed. Rebb ing 20:25, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Yeah I know about the BLP thing-I got rid of the BLP prod due that too, and that was over a year ago anyway. (I do think BLP prod should be eligible if there only links are to Twiter/Facebook/Linked In/Instagram though) Wgolf (talk) 20:29, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well I was told BLPPROD doesn't apply to those who have even 1 external link (Although it's not a source as in cite it's still considered a source anyway), And I'm more or less sure had a passing admin seen the prod they probably would've declined because of the link. –Davey2010^Talk 20:37, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're half-right (see "A common source of confusion" quoted above): You can't add BLPPROD to an article with a relevant external link, but the tag, once placed, remains valid until a reliable source has been added. That is to say that the standard for placing the tag (no sources whatsoever) is different from the standard for removing the tag or deleting the article (no reliable sources). By the policy, no one—administrator or otherwise—is to remove the tag without a reliable source being present, so, while a passing sysop could have chosen not to delete the article, another likely would have. Rebb ing 20:53, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't find coverage that would come close to meeting GNG, and her involvement in Adamant, Soulmate, and 2020 isn't enough for
NACTOR point 1. Rebb ing 19:34, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 19:37, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Only feature film has only 490 ratings on IMDb. Also seems to have been a non speaking role. EllsworthSchmittendorf (talk) 06:24, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and I would've explored PROD, nothing at all for WP:ENTERTAINER. SwisterTwister talk 05:12, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per
WP:TOOSOON. Not yet there. Bearian (talk) 19:35, 25 April 2016 (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.