Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kristie Jandric

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 keep. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:39, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kristie Jandric[edit]

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

fails WP:BIO and WP:ACTOR. gets only limited mention in the media [1] but not enough to pass over the line for notability. LibStar (talk) 00:26, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. _{– Eastmain (talk) 00:29, 5 November 2009 (UTC)}[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — Eastmain (talk) 00:32, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone got access to the June 2005 Inside Sport (Aus) magazine she was on the cover of? Duffbeerforme (talk) 08:14, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The reliable sources that note her work on notable projects is enough for me. ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:58, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

enough for you but she does not have significant coverage that meets WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 15:48, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep — Although she only has 4200 google hits, she did meet the nobility guidelines. Btilm 01:56, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how WP:GOOGLEHITS is relevant. LibStar (talk) 15:48, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the nom's own statement: "limited mention in the media [2] but enough to pass over the line for notability." Meets WP:GNG. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:02, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Why did you nominate this for deletion if there's "enough to pass over the line for notability"? And why do you question the relevance of Google hits, while linking to a Google News search? --Canley (talk) 05:10, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GOOGLEHITS applies to google search. google news is a far better indicator of third party coverage. I meant to say not enough. also you don't seem to say how she meets WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 05:34, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say 12 episodes of Satisfaction and 15 episodes of Neighbours satisfies the "significant roles in multiple ... television shows" clause of WP:ENT. That of course depends on one's interpretation of "significant" and "multiple" which I guess is the main disagreement here, but in my opinion she passes muster. --Canley (talk) 09:13, 10 November 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.