Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barron Hilton II (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. The notability of the topic has been challenged, and not asserted here convincingly. Skomorokh, barbarian   00:16, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Barron Hilton II

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This article has already been nominated and speedily deleted before; see here. Barron is not notable in his own right. His two older sisters are frequently covered in news articles and media, but him and Conrad are still young and haven't done much. Also, keep in mind that Conrad's article was deleted last week. ★ Dasani ★ 19:12, 4 November 2009 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget  00:08, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. The previous AfD (June 2006) on this article can be found here. This New York Post article is coverage that he has received in his own right. -- Eastmain (talk) 00:24, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Notable celeb. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:04, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * KEEP:Notable Celeb - Ret.Prof (talk) 04:14, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - press coverage allows us to keep pages but doesn't mean that we must. This guy has done nothing, achieved nothing and doesn't even have significant notoriety. The coverage is trivial about trivial events. We need to apply common-sense as well as notability guidelines. TerriersFan (talk) 14:22, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * You have a point, but Paris... - Ret.Prof (talk) 16:32, 13 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. I agree with TF, common sense is necessary. All the coverage appears to boil to down to two things: 1. He's Paris Hilton's younger brother 2. He's been involved with law enforcement a couple of times, once as a victim, once as the offending party. This is not the stuff of encyclopedic notability, rather, the former basis runs afoul of WP:NOTINHERITED while the latter violates WP:BIO1E. Xymmax  So let it be written   So let it be done  21:34, 18 November 2009 (UTC)


 * 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.