Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rumer Willis

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was Keep Zzyzx11 (Talk) 03:55, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Rumer Willis

Not notable in her own right. Rick K 06:18, May 30, 2005 (UTC)

Chances are she'll become notable in due course, but not yet. Weak delete. --W(t) 06:24, 2005 May 30 (UTC)
Delete I agree. Xcali 06:33, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, she's been in a bunch of movies already. She was the daughter in Hostage, for example. Adam Bishop 06:34, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Excerpt from Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not: "Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. This means that topical treatments can be rather large, can include any relevant links, and can be more timely, etc. It also means that the style and length of writing appropriate for paper is not necessarily a limitation here." - it can be a little timely - and I think it should be our goal to have a little bit of information on everything - weather it be a true entry or just a stub. Even if just one person one time is reading something and wonders "Who's Rumer Willis?" and visits the Rumer Willis page would justify having it in my mind. --Imaek 07:10, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Yawn. The old "Let's put in an article on every person who ever existed and ever will exist" argument. Still doesn't fly. Rick K 07:41, May 30, 2005 (UTC)
Keep, because of the appearance in Hostage and because people would want to look her up. Kappa 07:19, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, apart from her role in Hostage, IMDB also reports she had an uncredited role in The Whole Nine Yards and named roles in "Striptease" and "Now and Then". I've seen actors kept with less impressive credits. Mgm|^(talk) 07:23, May 30, 2005 (UTC)
- Really? Can you name one? RickK 07:45, May 30, 2005 (UTC)
  - How about that one that appeared in a couple of no budget indie films and keeps coming up on VfD? At least this kid appeared in films that people watched... Average Earthman 20:28, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nonnotable, fancruft. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 09:00, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup, concur with MGM. Megan1967 09:28, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
delete; merge the little info into both her parent's pages. Dunc|☺ 09:46, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- You can't delete and merge because of the GFDL. You might want to merge and redirect instead. Mgm|^(talk) 10:13, May 30, 2005 (UTC)
  - No I want to delete it and the information merged with both of her parent's pages, like I said. Dunc|☺ 19:00, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Week keep. — Phil Welch 09:47, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep child of famous parents with film appearances to her name. Capitalistroadster 23:58, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. That argument still flies very well. Almafeta 03:45, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't know if an imdb entry with minor film roles by itself, or being the child of extremely famous celebrities by itself, is enough. But the two together, certainly. Postdlf 17:18, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As I've met her, she's a pretty cool girl, and she's working her way through Hollywood, and even though it certainly helps to have her genes, she deserves her own entry... may not be much, but it's worth keeping. FutureNJGov 18:18, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
keep please because she is notable Yuckfoo 16:11, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep some notability. JamesBurns 08:57, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.