Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gina Bramhill

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. The delete opinions are clearly more convincing, particularly in light of WP:BLP - poorly sourced articles about living people are to be avoided. Can be userfied or incubated at will. Sandstein 18:08, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gina Bramhill[edit]

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

This person is not the subject of substantial coverage by reliable sources (WP:GNG, WP:BASIC). I've found mostly passing mention. Nor does she pass under WP:NACTOR on the basis of her minor appearances: 6 of 37 episodes of Being Human, and 6 of 8040 of Coronation Street. Her appearances in other contexts are decidedly insignificant. JFHJr (㊟) 22:54, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- Bit-parts in 14 episodes of 4 soaps does not constitute notability, not (apparently) minor parts in films. Being an actor is not sufficient to make a person notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:20, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Actress meets WP:ENT. She appeared in six of the eight episodes of the Being Human season she was signed up for and was a major focus of the story arc of that season. I hardly consider that a 'bit-part.' Silver Buizel (talk) 21:52, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:23, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete. I'm not entirely sure that eight episodes of an established show is enough, if she only appeared in it and wasn't a billed star. She seems pretty new. If Frontier gets past pilot, then I'd say keep, for sure. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 02:40, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Comment: This new article is only two weeks old, and is almost worth keeping per WP:HOTTIE. It is rare that any artricle starts out perfect, and in fact perfection is not required. In building an encyclopedia we are allowed (even encouraged) to have start and stub class articles that may be expanded and improved over time and through regular editing. What we have here is an actress only recently joining the club, and as stubby as the article is, we can verify her significant-to-plot-and-story roles as Araminty Finch in Mid Life Christmas (2009), as Venus in Propane (2009), as Judi Cale in Red Lights, as Gemma in 3 episodes of Without You, as Jodie Woodward in 4 episopes of Coronation Street, as Emily in The Frontier (2012), as Bella in Lotus Eaters, as in 6 episode of Being Human, and others seen in the article, and verifiable. Note: That some of her projects do not (yet) have articles is not a cause for deletion, nor an indicator of non-notability. More a reason to create new articles on those topics. While Bramhill is beginning to push at the intent of WP:ENT, she has so-far managed to keep a low media profile (bless her). As she is now gaining attention, perhaps best we either incubate this or userfy it (without prejudice) to its author for continued work. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:57, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She's 23, and her career is gaining momentum. We'd probably have to create an article about her soon anyway, and once deleted, it's fairly difficult to resurrect. If she goes nowhere, re-nominate for deletion. Listmeister (talk) 20:55, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like you're admitting it's WP:TOOSOON. Your comment also sounds like WP:ATA#CRYSTAL and maybe WP:PLEASEDONT. Do you have a notability-based or policy-based reason for keeping? JFHJr (㊟) 18:59, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reading my statement, I think I misrepresented my position. My intent was not WP:CRYSTAL. I'm saying it's a borderline call on the "Notable enough" question, so, I'm saying let her potential push the decision in her favor.Listmeister (talk) 14:30, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Incubate WP:TOOSOON at this point. J04n(talk page) 01:15, 10 April 2013 (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.