Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jordan Cook (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 delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:14, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jordan Cook (actress)[edit]

Jordan Cook (actress) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable person in a non notable film. The 'About a Boy' link is to a disamb link. David.moreno72 15:02, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete she's a 16 year-old girl whose only claim to be an actor is having appeared in 'About a Boy' when she was a baby. Don't see how she can claim to be an actor at all, let alone a notable one. Fails WP:ACTOR. Neiltonks (talk) 15:20, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no secondary sources.Rogermx (talk) 15:29, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:42, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:42, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:42, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:47, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Like her twin sister, Madison Cook - who's vanity article is also nominated for deletion - subject fails WP:NACTOR, WP:ANYBIO, WP:GNG and WP:BASIC. As with her sister's AfD, this is just another poorly written, unreferenced and blatant vanity article that should have been speedy deleted from the start. X4n6 (talk) 20:21, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Fails GNG. Carrite (talk) 06:51, 6 September 2017 (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.