Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clare Grant


 * 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) 00:13, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Clare Grant

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Poorly sourced BLP, Google search of her name does not bring up reputable sources. Sources used are IMDB, Star Wars Official Film Challenge and Action Flick Chick. — Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм  •  Champagne?  •  7:12pm  •  09:12, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Fails notability per WP:NACTOR. No significant roles or fan base evident. Might be worth mentioning her Robot Chicken appearances on the Seth Green page. Uncle Dick (talk) 16:19, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Meeting WP:ENT#1 is easily asserted and shown.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 01:03, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per standard 1 of WP:ENT; clearly has significant (as opposed to trivial) roles in multiple notable productions. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:12, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * True as that may be the sources fail to establish notability, given that reliable sources are VITAL to BLPs otherwise the material could be viewed as contentious or libelous. So what if she featured in notable films, so did a lot of other people but you don't see an article about them on Wikipedia now do you? Not to be rude about it or anything but that's the way it is. — Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм  •  Champagne?  • 9:23pm •  10:23, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Notability guideline WP:ENT is not intended to encourage a "so what?" attitude. With her having significant roles in multiple notable productions, the presumption per WP:ENT is toward notability... not the other-way-round.  And, as reliable sources are available, the better option is to use them to improve the article through the course of regular editing, rather than a deletion because other actors might not have articles.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 01:03, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep for me personally it is very clear that this actress is notable. End of story.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:50, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:10, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
 * AKA:
 * AKA:


 * Keep You guys are all asses. Go delete 'water'.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.80.49.25 (talk) 03:21, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per easily meeting the criteria for presumption of notability as set out in WP:ENT#1. She has coverage for far more than her recent marriage to Seth Green (lucky guy):    Time to fix, not delete. Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 01:03, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - I hadn't heard of her but even a rudimentary search of the internet comes up with many credits and evidence of notability, not least her marriage to the actor Seth Green. And many of these references are present on her Wikipedia page. It could do with some editing and tightening up and a few more references, but that's a stylistic issue. User: Alwayssoma —Preceding undated comment added 03:28, 11 October 2010 (UTC).
 * Keep - she's not a great actress, but is certainly famous for being famous, which long has been enough for inclusion. Bearian (talk) 22:11, 11 October 2010 (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.