Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kirby Bliss Blanton (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   keep. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 18:12, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Kirby Bliss Blanton
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

BLPPROD declined because a primary source was in the article (an IMDB link), though even the PROD decliner admitted that no reliable sources were in the article. Article has an IMDB link and nothing else (no reliable sources), and is a BLP. p b  p  17:38, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Note that topic has already been deleted once for failing notability guidelines for entertainers. This article, an BLP lacking reliable sources, fails to remedy that  p  b  p  17:41, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. p  b  p  17:47, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment As the person who declined the BLPPROD, I once again point the nominator at WP:BLPPROD, which ties my hands with respect to declining BLPPRODs with respect to articles which have even the most unreliable sources within them. --joe deckertalk to me 18:01, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Basically, we're here because of an unfortunate loophole in the BLPPROD rules...article isn't sourced enough to statisfy BLP, but is "sourced" enough to be declined as BLPPROD. In any case, it's AfD-eligble, so here we are.  The PROD is old news now  p  b  p  18:11, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Loophole or not, I fixed that. Now that it has some sourcing, the whole basis for the nomination is over, so I guess we can close the AfD.--Milowent • hasspoken  01:37, 2 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep (from Neutral ) I didn't find sourcing that meets WP:GNG, and that never thrills me when writing about living people, but she does have a significant role in one notable film, which leaves me at the question of whether Scar (film) is notable. If it is, her role in it is signficant, and she meets, by a hair, WP:ENT #1.  If not, I don't think she does. --joe deckertalk to me 18:33, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Looking through more refs I see enough to be convinced Scar is notable, which gets Ms. Blanton to WP:ENT #1. I also see Milowent has found at least one significant source I missed and added it. --joe deckertalk to me 01:06, 2 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep She has had significant roles in two notable films so passes WP:NACTOR.  D r e a m Focus  18:34, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The article is still unsourced, and therefore violates BLP... p  b  p  19:27, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * There is no information that could possible offend anyone or cause libel lawsuit problems in any way. Instead of wasting time with an AFD, you could search for her name, in Google news archive, and the name of any of her films, and then copy and paste the address of the results to the article, proving she was in those things she it listed as being part of.  AFD is not cleanup. WP:NOTCLEANUP If there is a very easy problem to fix, then just fix it, don't waste time dragging others over to do it for you.   D r e a m Focus  19:43, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 19:58, 1 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete Reliable sourcing is non-negotiable in a BLP.&mdash;Kww(talk) 01:03, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Its fully sourced now, that's really not a problem.--Milowent • hasspoken 01:35, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * If you want to consider an article that can't source a single standard infobox field besides her name to be "fully sourced", that's your prerogative. There's no substance here.&mdash;Kww(talk) 01:48, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * (edited) I am working to improve the article.--Milowent • hasspoken 01:51, 2 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete multiple roles but don't see evidence of being notable. LibStar (talk) 01:31, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep: Notable, has had multiple roles, meets GNG.  I agree she's not super notable, but she has enough, and article is pretty popular (already avging about 300 views a day since its creation 10 days ago).  Was article as originally written clear as to notability?  No.  That's what us editors are here for, though.--Milowent • hasspoken  01:40, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - Found and added this source to the article:
 * — Northamerica1000(talk) 06:12, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * — Northamerica1000(talk) 06:12, 2 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep: minor notability, but seems to pass both WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. Cavarrone (talk) 13:59, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep: verifiably/independently notable. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:26, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - many notable roles. passes WP:GNG. An actress at the beginning of her career.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:53, 3 May 2012 (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.