Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hanna Griffiths

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. ✗plicit 04:12, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hanna Griffiths[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Spam for non notable actress/producer. Deceptively sourced promotional BLP. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Lots of namedropping but notability is not inherited. No major awards. No significant roles. Just lots of pr. duffbeerforme (talk) 08:31, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, and Australia. Shellwood (talk) 08:50, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non notable, and rife with WP:PROMO --TheInsatiableOne (talk) 09:04, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A lot of unverified statements. Fails WP:NACTOR and WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 03:46, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 🌶️Jala peño🌶️ Don't click this link! 08:50, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete funding announcements and appears to have won minor or non-notable awards, for sourcing, both don't help. I can't find sources. Oaktree b (talk) 11:58, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Paid promo by now-blocked acct. 128.252.154.2 (talk) 18:31, 8 June 2023 (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.