Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alex Paxton-Beesley

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:02, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Paxton-Beesley

[edit]
Alex Paxton-Beesley (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)

WP:BLP of an actress, who has only debatable claims to passing WP:NACTOR and no reliable sources to support it. This is referenced entirely to IMDb and her "staff" profile on the website of the network that airs the show she's in -- and her role in Murdoch Mysteries was much more minor than anything one could call "best known for", as she appeared in just five episodes (the series has produced 150 to date) and not even always as the same character. As always, actresses do not automatically get a free pass over WP:NACTOR just because roles are listed and primary sourced -- she must be the subject of enough coverage in reliable sources for an article to become earned. No prejudice against recreation in the future if and when enough RS coverage can be added to get her in the door, but nothing stated or sourced here is enough to get her an article today. Bearcat (talk) 15:01, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 15:22, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 15:22, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as the subject is not notable. Does not pass the WP:GNG as the subject does not have significant coverage in reliable and independent sources. A WP:BEFORE search found no such sources. Does not seem to pass WP:NACTOR as the subject does not seem to have a "cult or large following" and does not seem to have "made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment". The only way that this could pass WP:NACTOR is that if the subject "has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions" but that is not passed as the subject, Alex Paxton-Beesley does not seem to have significant roles in the films mentioned in the article. -KAP03(Talk • Contributions • Email) 18:03, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'll grant Pure as a significant role — she plays the protagonist's wife — but definitely not Murdoch Mysteries, and even if we accept Pure it does indeed take multiple significant roles, not just one, if you're going for "notable because she's had roles" rather than "notable because she got nominated for a major acting award for one of them", and it still takes reliable source coverage about her, not just "roles are listed". Bearcat (talk) 18:55, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please reconsider. There is no question her role in Pure is significant; she is main cast and the wife of the lead. And she does have multiple significant roles; see my comment below. —Lowellian (reply) 04:27, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A person does not get a free pass over NACTOR just because you list and claim significance for two roles. An NACTOR pass lives or dies on whether the claim is properly reliably sourced over GNG, and no actor ever gets exempted from having to clear GNG just because roles are listed but not properly sourced in the article. Bearcat (talk) 10:43, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not disputing that the article needs sourcing, but, for the record, significance was claimed for three roles, not two. —Lowellian (reply) 11:09, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter if significance is claimed for 10,000 roles — if the sourcing isn't there to support it, the article still doesn't get kept just because the claim has been made. Bearcat (talk) 11:13, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I already acknowledged in the comment that you were replying to that the article needs sourcing. —Lowellian (reply) 03:09, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As I've already explained above, NACTOR is not passed just because multiple roles are asserted. She has to have been the subject of sufficient reliable source coverage about her — and no number of "significant" roles exempts her from having to be reliably sourced. And exactly zero of the sources here are contributing anything at all toward making her notable enough — the only one that's even a valid source at all is the Toronto Star (#2), and that just glancingly namechecks the fact that she exists while being not even slightly about her otherwise. IMDB is not a reliable source, her own staff profile on the CBC's own website is not an independent source, and Novella is a PR blog and not a real newspaper — so exactly none of them assist a GNG pass at all. Bearcat (talk) 10:38, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is a property inherent to the subject, not a property of the article. AFD is not cleanup: articles about non-notable subjects should always be deleted; however, bad articles about notable subjects should be improved, not deleted. I'm not disputing that the article as it currently stands is poor and inadequately sourced. But the subject is sufficiently notable that the article could be improved to a properly-sourced good article. —Lowellian (reply) 03:09, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, notability is a property of the subject: as determined by whether the subject has the degree of reliable source coverage necessary to pass the test, because reliable source coverage is the definition of notability and the measurement of whether it's been attained or not. It's not enough to just assert that the article "could" be improved to a properly sourced good article — the onus is on you to show hard evidence that the degree of reliable source coverage necessary to make the subject notable does exist out there, preferably by actually improving the article with good sourcing while this discussion is underway, but at the very least by showing real evidence in this discussion. Bearcat (talk) 14:57, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:41, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Well, right off the bat she's not "best known" for Pure (which is an incredibly recent role). She's been around a while. But she's the kind of journeyman actress that like won't pass WP:BASIC. This is another one that should have been created in Draftspace first and developed there to try to track down sourcing... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:27, 24 April 2017 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Alex_Paxton-Beesley&oldid=1137551756"