Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Khristine Hvam


 * 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. In the case of an unreferenced BLP, this no-consensus result should default to delete, with a clear understanding that it can be created once properly referenced. Stifle (talk) 08:41, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Khristine Hvam

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

proposed by an IP address Hekerui (talk) 00:52, 22 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep No reason is given for deletion... In light of that fact, lets err on the side of caution and keep the article. It is admittedly a stub, but I can't see any reason to simply delete it at this point. Lets keep it and try and expand it. --Pstanton (talk) 00:57, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * No indications of notability (the character she played on the TV series was 1 episode) and no third party sources are reasons to me.  TJ   Spyke   01:05, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Pokémon:_The_Rise_of_Darkrai; concur that this is a disappointing nomination. JJL (talk) 01:07, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. —Calathan (talk) 15:15, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:07, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Based on her work on notable audio books as well. http://www.khristinehvam.com/clients.html  D r e a m Focus  11:04, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete no reliable sources that discuss the subject of a BLP? Then no BLP.Bali ultimate (talk) 15:10, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep - Nom didn't state an opinion as to why this should be deleted. -- Kraftlos  (Talk | Contrib) 02:47, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete This article lacks any secondary sources and any assertion of notability. It's been around for 10 months with no improvement. It's had time to be improved. I support keep/recreation if secondary sources are added. Otherwise delete. The fact that the deletion didn't have a good rationale is irrelevant. — BQZip01 —  talk 01:40, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, unsourced BLP. Lankiveil (speak to me) 05:00, 1 May 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.