Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kimber Sissons

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 delete. Shimeru (talk) 07:47, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kimber Sissons

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

Ah models..... how to know if they are notable when your head is spinning with their loveliness.... UtherSRG (talk) 09:55, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't remember what she looks like and I'm not going to look. That way it won't cloud my judgement. =) Henrymrx (t·c) 15:54, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Don't multiple movie and TV roles establish notability? Torchiest ^talk/_contribs 17:16, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep To "Torchiest", it depends on how many and what kinds - I'm not sure the few roles mentioned in the article would be enough. OTOH, the IMDb listing for her has 31 entries, and that OUGHT to be enough. IMO. David V Houston (talk) 18:05, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A few dozen roles with names like "Girl," "Waitress," and "Woman at Craps Table" do not establish notability. There do not appear to be any leading roles of any kind in her career. Henrymrx (t·c) 19:12, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:03, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Only substantial film roles are in pictures that stunk (but not badly enough to be even remotely notable). Clarityfiend (talk) 02:46, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete very minor roles Vartanza (talk) 22:14, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:GNG. Claritas § 17:22, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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.