Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gigi Parrish

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. RL0919 (talk) 15:25, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gigi Parrish

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Parrish clearly does not meet the inclusion crieria for actresses. There is no evidence that even one of her roles was a significatn role in a notable production. The current sourcing is to the public record of her marriage, which exist for every legal marriage (although some are lost) and so is not at all a sign of anything, and to IMDb which is not reliable and ultra inclusive. A search for her under her stage name turned up inclusion in lists of actresses, just in lists, where her name is given, between other names, and they are saying nothing of substance about her. A search for her married name turned up nothing. John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:02, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:06, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:06, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:06, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:07, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:07, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:07, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. [1], [2], [3], [4]. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 15:28, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets GNG with the four refs provided above. EnPassant♟♙ (talk) 23:37, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Thank you AleatoryPonderings, that RS should be included in the article, supports notability. Deathlibrarian (talk) 11:12, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Deathlibrarian: Can you please fix your comment's formatting? It looks like I commented twice, but I did not. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 15:33, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, yes, sorry about that, done. Deathlibrarian (talk) 22:18, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - no issues. Deb (talk) 12:52, 27 January 2022 (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.