Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emily Hahn (actress)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. — Cirt (talk) 00:57, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Emily Hahn (actress)[edit]
- Emily Hahn (actress) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No assertion of notability for this child actress and no reliable third-party sources either (the only one is the usual IMDB link which, as the message states, is not reliable for biographical information). Past articles on similar child actors including Hannah Unkrich, Charlie Bright and Beatrice Miller (as well as this article) have all been deleted due to similar issues.trainfan01 talk 8:07, 1 July, 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - Playing Bonnie in Toy Story 3 and Hawaiian Vacation not an assertion of notability? Just playing a principal role in one of the most financially successful films of all time is enough to pass our standards. Also had guest starred in House M.D. and Falling Skies just to name a couple so the topic does pass WP:NACTOR. The articles mentioned by the nom were speedy deleted because either they were created by banned users or had no content. And why was this opened in the "places and transportation" category? --Oakshade (talk) 16:10, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot drop me a line 18:41, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:20, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:53, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Oakshade.--Johnsemlak (talk) 12:17, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Oakshade's analysis. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:59, 8 July 2011 (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.