Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jennifer Hammon


 * 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 no consensus. Clearly a borderline case, but no agreement about which side of the notability border she falls on.  Sandstein  15:01, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Jennifer Hammon

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Failed WP:PROD. BLP article completely unsourced since creation in 2007. Very borderline WP:NACTOR (two "significant" roles would be Port Charles and Allyson Is Watching), but I can find no significant sourcing for this one, so it very probably fails WP:BASIC. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:43, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:43, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:43, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete at best with nothing better for WP:ENTERTAINER, she was a General Hospital character for two years but there's simply nothing convincing to keep. SwisterTwister   talk  22:13, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:08, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep as had significant roles in Port Charles and Allyson is Watching, found these sources and   I think WP:BASIC is only just passed. Atlantic306 (talk) 20:00, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Those don't clear it for WP:GNG. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:28, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I think its borderline.Check out section 2 in the box for instructions to AFC reviewers which defines significant coverage as at least one substantial paragraph here, it surprised me as I had thought it had to be more than that. Atlantic306 (talk) 00:37, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The thing is, what clears you through WP:AfC is not binding on what happens here at AfD. Put another way, what AfC is telling reviewers is the bare minimum to accept an article for publication in mainspace. But I suspect the AfC people assume that these "single refs" will soon be supplemented by other refs from other editors once the article is published (i.e. they're viewing that "bare minimum standard" as the starting point for an article...). At AfD, OTOH, we're sometimes looking at BLPs that have been entirely unsourced for up to a decade (and which would qualify for WP:BLPPROD if BLPPROD had been "grandfathered" to include them) which is usually a sign that significant sourcing is unavailable for the subject. Note the choice of my words – "significant sourcing". It's not to say that some of these languishing BLPs can't be sourced at all – it's that they can't be "adequately" or well sourced enough to clear WP:GNG (or WP:BASIC). In any case, what happens at AfC is certainly not binding here. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 01:24, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep added a source so no longer unreferenced BLP. Certainly there are other marginally famous actors with wikipedia articles. I agree she barely meets the requirements for notability, but she does meet them. Add to that, there is a tremendous disparity in the number of men's and women's biographies, for me that weighs in favor of keeping and improving this article.Knope7 (talk) 21:13, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
 * This is precisely a WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument. SST  flyer  01:19, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:27, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vipinhari  &#124;&#124;  talk  17:12, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete Does not meet the requirements for notability of actors. We do not keep poorly sourced articles on marginally notable people because we have lots of poorly sourced articles on marginally notable people. If you think there are others actors who are not notable and yet have articles (which is probably the case), you are free to nominate them for deletion. And to tell you the truth, if they really are less notable than Hammon, I will also vote for deleting that article as well. Just because we cannot manage to nominate all below par articles that do not meet notability requirements at once, does not mean we should keep such articles as we have.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:30, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep: Borderline. but keep. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VanEman (talk • contribs) 17:40, April 3, 2016‎ (UTC)
 * Delete - The WP:OSE argument isn't really valid in this instance. And remember, having two significant roles only means the may be notable (the guideline says "multiple", but does not define it). To be specific, the guideline says: "People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards. Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included." In this instance I don't think the two roles she has had guarantee that she is notable.  Onel 5969  TT me 01:33, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Weak keep - Hammon appeared in two significant roles but barely reaches notability. Meatsgains (talk) 23:52, 8 April 2016 (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.