Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emma Hiddleston

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 redirect to Tom Hiddleston while she does have notable roles in theatre, doesn't meet WP:GNG at the moment but might in the future which is why it's the decision to redirect opposed to deletion. (Non-administrator closure.) LADY LOTUS • TALK 14:05, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Emma Hiddleston

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet Wikipedia's standards for notability. See in particular: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Entertainers. She has had no significant or important roles, she does not have a significant fan base, nor has she made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment. This page seems to exist for promotional purposes which are not appropriate to Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SpringandFall (talk • contribs) 01:44, 14 July 2014‎ (UTC)— SpringandFall (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:04, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:04, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meets WP:GNG LADY LOTUS • TALK 10:49, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Tom Hiddleston, I feel like she is notable enough for an article, she has had starring roles in theatre and she also has a role in an upcoming mini-series, so maybe redirect and if she becomes more notable down the road, revert and add to it? LADY LOTUS • TALK 13:58, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Looking through references, didn't find much, although I included a reference to a photo of her in Glamour magazine. It is possible there are more sources and that I simply didn't look long enough? To meet the GNG, we need several in-depth independent sources focusing on her, and I looked through 10 SERP pages, didn't find that, but may change my vote if new evidence is presented, so please present them. However, about the fan base, consider pageviews in the hundreds each day, although that could be related to her brother Tom's pageviews in the thousands each day. I realize pageviews is an unofficial measure but it can indicate things; my experience is subjects with substantial pageviews tend to be notable.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:52, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:GNG. –Davey2010 • (talk) 01:01, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete I don't think she quite meets WP:ACTOR through not having enough major roles in notable/widely reviewed works. As far as I can see, she's originated a role in one fringe theatre production (Precious Little Talent) and done some revivals and non-notable plays, but none of her TV roles are major. That leaves WP:GNG which again she doesn't quite meet independently, though her brother has helped her get some press. Could redirect/selective merge to the article on her brother Tom Hiddleston. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:17, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete I don't think she meets WP:ACTOR through her work. The standards are pretty clear, and I don't see how she meets them. I think to meet the standard for WP:GNG there has to be much more support through secondary sources, In other words, articles or interviews that show how she is notable. I did some googling, but I don't see anything about her individually, only articles about and interviews with her brother where he mentions in passing that he has a sister named Emma. I'd have to see some evidence of notability that is completely hers to say keep. Expiredramen (talk) 20:32, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]