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. MER-C 05:07, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kirsten Lea (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

article created by SPA account. Tenuous notability. Uncredited in the soloist. Could be notable as per production work. Hedge fund manager. Could be a puff piece. scope_creep (talk) 00:29, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article is horribly written, composed mainly of puffery (some of which I just removed) and is desperately straining to establish notability by name-dropping Joan Collins, Robert Downey Jr. and Anthony Newley for no reason. No viable third-party sources that describe her as anything other than the WAG of a shady hedge fund manager or a fashion blogger. sixtynine ^{• speak up •} 01:44, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:00, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:01, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The article claims twice that the TV-movie Beverly Hills Christmas which the subject acted in and produced was shown to 70 million viewers. If that were so, it would have been one of the most viewed broadcasts in the history of American television. It wasn't. My guess is that the article creator was trying to mislead readers by citing the number of viewers who had access to the network which broadcast the movie, not the number who actually watched it. But if the article was written with the intention of misleading readers, then it ought to be deleted. If the person is notable, the article can be re-created, but that ought to be done from scratch rather than trying to start from this misleading article. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:09, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete A good place to apply WP:TNT. No credible evidence of notability and hoddibly poor article. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:31, 27 December 2016 (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.