Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kristen Hancher


 * 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. Daniel (talk) 03:42, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Kristen Hancher
AfDs for this article:


 * – ( View AfD View log )

Does not display Notability, most articles are gossip articles that reference her TikTok presence. Acting career is trivial at best. Notoriety on TikTok seems to be reliant on amount of followers. Most notable is the nomination for 2017 Teen Choice Awards for "Choice Muser" (whatever that is). I'll point out that only one of the other nominations in that category display notability for their own pages. CaffeinAddict (talk) 16:08, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CaffeinAddict (talk) 16:16, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CaffeinAddict (talk) 16:21, 7 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete I see no evidence that she has ever been in a notable production, let alone that she has ever had a significant role in one. This is the most slam dunk case for deletion with an actress article I have seen in a while.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:06, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete No evidence of significant coverage. Citations are all either passing mentions, low-quality and/or self-published. Also removed some borderline BLP-violating stuff.... If such things keep getting added back it probably needs semi-protection. Nvm, seems to be a non-issue. Ovinus (talk) 20:12, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Regarding SK2242's sources: (1) doesn't seem to cover her as a person. All we know is she's an influencer and that she was criticized by many Instagram viewers for being an aquatic equestrian. (2) not in-depth coverage; it's three paragraphs, with the last paragraph being solely about her representatives. (3) Looks okay but not reliable. (4) Looks okay, although I can't assess the source's reliability. There's also (5) this, but I don't know Yahoo! news's reliability. I'll admit I may be extra critical of these sources due to my personal biases, but I think we should require high-quality RS because this is a BLP—about a TikTok star, no less, which probably generates lots of gossip inappropriate for our article. Cheers, Ovinus (talk) 06:25, 15 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep Meets GNG: 1. 2.  3.  (Reliability is situational) 4.  (Reliability undiscussed)  Please do a BEFORE search before nominating articles at AfD. SK2242 (talk) 16:28, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment oh I did a BEFORE. I hardly consider any of these sources to be RS. CaffeinAddict (talk) 06:29, 15 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep per and WP:SIGCOV. While not newspaper of record-type of sources, they are good enough sources for popular culture. Bearian (talk) 12:37, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:34, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 16:11, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete I did a WP:BEFORE and read most of those sources. None of them seem very reliable or verifiable and I think most would agree they aren't major sources of credible media. As such, the subject does not meet the requirements of WP:N and does not warrant a stand alone article. -- A Rose Wolf ( Talk ) 18:44, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Buzzfeed News and Deadline Hollywood are both listed as reliable on WP:RSP. Seventeen is a long running magazine that appears reliable although there have been no discussions on WP:RSN. Insider is listed as situational on RSP. SK2242 (talk) 18:56, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree that Buzzfeed News is more reliable due to its mildly more stringent editorial requirements. I had mistaken it with Buzzfeed. Are we really prepared to say that the Deadline source is in-depth and significant coverage? It's three sentences broken up into three paragraphs. The fact that Seventeen is long running and hasn't been discussed probably tells us all we need to know about that one. Insider being situational is putting it mildly. It's mostly unreliable fluff passed off as journalism. So our sources are: one reliable, one so relatively obscure that it hasn't ever been discussed before this article, one seemingly reliable that felt the subject was worthy of three sentences and one mostly unreliable except in certain situations but we really don't know when that is. Ask yourself, objectively, does that sound convincing? -- A Rose Wolf ( Talk ) 19:15, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * If you personally view Insider as unreliable cool, but its viewed by the majority of editors as situational. The Deadline source is wholly about Hancher regardless of its length and that’s good enough. Ask on RSN how good Seventeen is and if they say it’s unreliable I’ll happily change my vote but this is convincing enough for notability. It’s 2 reliable, 1 presumably reliable (and if it is then it meets GNG there and then), and 1 situational. SK2242 (talk) 19:22, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * There is a distinct difference between being the primary subject of an article and receiving in-depth significant coverage by an article. Length does matter and so does substance. You still have one reliable with sigcov, one reliable with marginal (being nice) coverage, one you presume is reliable, which carries about as much weight as my opinion on the Insider, but is not listed and one situational yet you, nor I, nor anyone can define when it's a reliable situation and when it's not a reliable situation. Keep your vote what it is. I'm not here to tell you what your opinion should be. I'm just offering mine based on the facts I see in this case. -- A Rose Wolf ( Talk ) 19:32, 14 January 2021 (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.