Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Renée Estevez


 * 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. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:12, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Renée Estevez

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Unimportant sibling to two famous actors, Charlie Sheen and Emilio Estevez. Tailcoating is not a valid reason for an article. Not notable herself, Tovojolo (talk) 00:50, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep If she was a regular on The West Wing (43 episodes as the President's secretary)-- her father Martin is also kind of famous-- it would appear that she's notable. That she isn't as "important" as the other Sheens isn't a reason to describe her as unimportant.  She's entitled to be judged on her own merits. Mandsford 01:41, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Actress in her own right and from a generationally famous Hollywood acting family. Easily meets notability. Nineteen Nightmares (talk) 01:54, 1 July 2010 (UTC)Nineteen Nightmares
 * Keep - She had a recurring role on the West Wing and other fairly major roles. I think she barely meets Notability_(people) #1. I'm a little concerned that I can't find any coverage in independent reliable sources. P. D. Cook  Talk to me! 02:42, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. West Wing, second billing in Intruder, and credited roles in films like Heathers and Single White Female look good enough to me. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:22, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - her roles are enough to establish notability. I have added three sources to the article so some of the information can be verified.   GB fan  talk 11:11, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep. This is seriously the dumbest AfD I've ever seen. The notion of her not being notable is stupid. BLGM5 (talk) 15:39, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I think it's worth assuming good faith here. Rather than attacking the nomination, it's better to comment on why the subject meets or fails Wikipedia's standards. P. D. Cook  Talk to me! 16:25, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * User has been around for well over 3 years, with several thousand edits. Things like these just waste time. BLGM5 (talk) 18:28, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * So do comments like yours. They are inappropriate.  Gtstricky Talk or C 22:00, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * He did not in any way assume bad faith - he opined poor judgement. I think the poor judgement is obvious, even in the best of faith. It appears to be some sort of disease on AFD to confuse the two. There are such things as frankly terrible nominations (and this is one), and I can't see how it does Wikipedia any good to feign denial that there are - David Gerard (talk) 00:47, 4 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep - notible in her own right.  Gtstricky Talk or C 22:00, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:39, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep... heck... SNOW keep. If her notabilty were dependent on her family, the nominator's concerns would be valid, but as she has independent notability and coverage, and a healthy body of work as an actress, she easily meets WP:ENT.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 05:46, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Snowball keep per above - David Gerard (talk) 00:45, 4 July 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.