Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hania Barton (2nd nomination)

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. MBisanz ^talk 18:26, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hania Barton[edit]

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

Barton appeared in 2 works, a TV production and a film, when she was 10 and 12 respectively. In neither case did she have anything approaching a significant role. The article was deleted back in 2006. The only thing since then has been extremely tabloid coverage of her going to drug rehab. She does not pass the notability guidelines for actors, and the article as it stands has major BLP issues. I do not think the sources justify mentioning drug rehab, and Barton is just not notable. John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:35, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:53, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:53, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt - that article is a BLP disaster area, with no RSes and all tabloids. Seriously, most of it should be removed immediately - David Gerard (talk) 00:08, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:17, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:37, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- as BLP violations based on non RS. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:23, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Oh gosh yes delete, and I'm only sorry it's taken this long. Thank you David Gerard for removing the inappropriate material. I'm not super familiar with the various kinds of protection available but given that this had already been deleted once, then returned and was up for years, I do think it's worth adding an obstacle to recreation. If something changes dramatically and she becomes truly notable, someone will put in a request to revisit. Innisfree987 (talk) 20:07, 8 September 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.