Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chipo Chung

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 no consensus. Courcelles 00:25, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chipo Chung[edit]

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

Fails WP:ENTERTAINER. A nearly unknown character actor with only nine credits, all in minor, non-notable roles. Heck, one of my exes probably has more acting credits than this. While the productions are notable in some cases (Doctor Who), the roles are not. I'm not seeing multiple cases of in-depth coverage in independent reliable sources. The "article" is clearly just a copy-paste of the subject's self-published résumé (I pruned a bunch of name-dropping" trivia from it already – "opposite award-winning [whoever]" junk), has zero independent sources, and doesn't even really make a claim of notability other than having some film/TV credits at all. But not being an abject failure as an actor, and having some minor work in the field, doesn't equate to being a notable actor. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 02:24, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — —Tom Morris (talk) 09:56, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Quite a few independent sources out there. She is a "star" according to Digital Spy [1] which is a bit strong, but according to the impeccably reliable Independent she is an "admirable performer"[2]. Tigerboy1966 (talk) 17:30, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per her verifiable career meeting WP:ENT. Not every actor's career consists of nothing but starring roles in notable productions, and not every film has only one star. ENT does not demand such, and only advises that the multiple roles be "significant"... which I read as being named roles "significant" to plot or storyline", as oposed to credits as named or descriptive and otherwise insigificant background actors. But even without arguing over what that guideline may or may not "mean", we also have multiple secondary sources that speak about the actress in a non-trivial manner, even if not currently used in the article,[3] which gives us a meeting of WP:GNG. The nominator's "ex" notwithstanding, we do not delete improvable articles simply because they need work. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:05, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 23:37, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Considering the number of people who have contributed to this article over the last 3 years, the improvements that often follow a deletion nomination haven't exactly flooded in. You would think that when "keepers" have helpfully identified potentally useful sources, some of the creators would pull their fingers out and do some work.Tigerboy1966 (talk) 00:29, 15 October 2011 (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.