Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hannah Hobley (second nomination)
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 due to unverified notability through reliable sources unrelated to the actress in question. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 21:02, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hannah Hobley[edit]
- Hannah Hobley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
Previously deleted by Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hannah Hobley. Two articles: one says that Hannah Hobley is an actress who plays Chantelle Garvey, the other says that Chantelle Garvey is a character played by Hannah Hobley. And that, literally, is it. No evidence that this (very young) actress has achieved multiple non-trivial coverage in reliable independent secondary sources. These, and one-liners on a couple of other characters, are the only work of the user who created them. Previous versions have been created by the actress herself, which invites suspicion when an SPA is the creator this time round. Guy (Help!) 07:32, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually there is considerable evidence that this actress has achieved mulitiple coverage. As well as her IMDB entry, just do a Google search on her name and there are umpteen references to the actress and the character she plays in online TV magazines such as the Radio Times etc. The ITV and Tiger Aspect websites have both references and pictures of her also. What has her age got to do with anything?!! Also interesing to note that Guy has proposed deletion of Chantelle Garvey but none of the other characters from the Benidorm TV series - why? Benidorm has been a very popular TV series in the UK and it concerns me that someone from the USA decides to try and discredit an accurate and verifiable Wikipedia entry on a British actressFspinner 11:26, 23 March 2007 (UTC)This user has made no contributions other than to this article. --Zedco 12:06, 23 March 2007 (UTC) [reply]
- SO why are there no reliable sources cited in the article? IMDB is not evidenbce of notability, as it's user edited. Noised about on Teh Internets? Big fat hairy deal. I live in the UK, I have seen nothing about this actress yet. Guy (Help!) 12:00, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and request that nominator takes a look at all the links from the Benidorm entry (such as Geoff's mum). This is a walled garden and breaks notability, advertising and VAIN guidelines. Vizjim 11:44, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete ive just been lookin at the links. ive never heard of her. she aint notable by a long stretch an if we had people on here who get bit parts in the mass o tv stuff, the wiki might crash. even i had a bit part once. in the sckool play tho. but the teacher did video it.--Zedco 11:58, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- KeepThis actress is listed as a principal cast member on both the ITV and Tiger Aspect websites, so certainly not a 'bit part' actor and Benidorm is a major ITV sitcom which has been so successful that it has been recommissioned for a second seriesFspinner 14:16, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Wrtten by a BAFTA nominated writer and with a cast of well known British comedy actors and broadcast on the main ITV channel with peak viewing of over 5.5 million, that's how I would define 'major'Fspinner 14:54, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Whereas I would define major as having been described as major by reliable secondary sources. And I would also describe a significant actress as having been described as significant by reliable secondary sources. You can see where this is headed, can't you? And that's cast including not cast of well-known British comic actors (and Johnny Vegas, who must have a talent for something, I just haven't spotted what it is yet). Appearing in a show with big names does not make you a big name. Guy (Help!) 16:16, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well I wasn't suggesting that this actress was a 'big name' and I was actually replying to a question about Benidorm the TV series , not the actress under discussion. I would say that being a principal cast member in an ITV1 show certainly is notable under Wikipedia rules and those rules don't require you to be a 'big name' actor to be worthy of a wikipedia article. I notice you haven't replied to my questions about why the ITV website and Tiger Aspect website are not (in your opinion) good enough to be considered as reliable secondary sources. Oh and you also haven't responded to my question about you mentioning her age. I wonder, are you a frustrated performer of some kind? You can see where I'm heading with this can't you? Fspinner 16:33, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy keep She played a major character on a major (albeit IMO terrible) show on the biggest channel in the UK - I can't see why this was AfD'd in the first place. - Iridescenti 18:30, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Two things first, speedy keep is an invalid !vote here; second, who says major character? Not the reliable secondary sources (of which none are cited in the article). The major parts are listed in the article for the show. Who says major show? The time slot says otherwise. And even that is not actually relevant: has she been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial coverage in reliable independent sources? No? Fails WP:N. Yes? Cite them in the article, it gets kept. Simple. Guy (Help!) 22:27, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment "The time slot says otherwise" - Huh? Benidorm was on at 10pm, generally ITV's highest-rating slot after 7-8pm (which contains Coronation Street and Emmerdale) - and had to go out after 9pm at any case due to the UK's watershed rules. Not saying it wasn't an awful programme but it was certainly a major one, given that it was flavour-of-the-month Johnny Vegas's first mainstream sitcom; the only issue is whether her part in it is enough to make her notable given her lack of other experience. IMO the fact that ITV lists her as one of the main credits on their website is enough to make her so, even if the article does need a huge fleshing-out. - Iridescenti 22:51, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Guy, are you actually saying that this actress is not notable because of her show's 10pm timeslot?? Besides a timeslot being an absurd argument, I'll remind you that ER was the most watched show in television history... and that was a 10pm show. --Oakshade 17:34, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Delete purely based on the fact that the article isn't sourced at the moment, if those appear then fine, keep it. At the moment, another example of "was in a TV programme". EliminatorJR Talk 00:31, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep on more or less the same grounds--I think it is clear that it is sourcable. But the one to keep is the one on the actress. The character is covered adequately in the article about the show, and that article should be deleted.DGG 07:27, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Hannah Hobley and no opinion on Chantelle Garvey - Principle cast member on popular national TV show. The show has become more popular since the last AfD. (And why is this in the "Places and transportation" catagory? - UPDATE: Just corrected this.--Oakshade 21:40, 30 March 2007 (UTC)) --Oakshade 21:40, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this person is very notable.--Matrix17 14:44, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No evidence of multiple non-trivial coverage in reliable independent sources. One Night In Hackney303 14:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A reminder on what is written about actor's notability
- Entertainers: actors, comedians, opinion makers, and television personalities
- Have appeared in well-known films, stage plays, television, and other productions.
This actress has appeared in a well-known television production. This fact is supported by the ITV website, the TV programme's own website, the (highly prestigeous)production company's website, where she is listed as 'main talent'. The ITV press website list her previous performance credits also. This item should not have been listed for afd in the first placeFspinner 12:43, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Please read the text above that, which states The following criteria make it likely that sufficient reliable information is available about a given person. People who satisfy at least one of these criteria may merit their own Wikipedia articles, as there is likely to be a good deal of verifiable information available about them and a good deal of public interest in them. This article should not have been created in the first place. One Night In Hackney303 12:46, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- People who satisfy at least one of these criteria may merit their own Wikipedia articles, as there is likely to be a good deal of verifiable information available about them and a good deal of public interest in them Well I would say that she does have a good deal of verifiable information available about her e.g. the aforementioned reliable websites but I guess we're not going to agree on thisFspinner 13:04, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The sources are not independent, please provide independent sources. One Night In Hackney303 13:06, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Not independent of what?!!! They certainly are independent of the actress. I could understand you saying this if I was citing her personal website but no way can you say that she's not independent of those websites Fspinner 13:09, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Not independent of her, obviously. Companies she works for are not independent sources. Please show us where the "good deal of verifiable information" is, at the moment it stands at two sentences. One Night In Hackney303 13:17, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- With the greatest of respect, I think you misunderstand the workings of the television business. She does not work for ITV. In this instance, ITV is a network that transmits a programme that she is in. Neither does she work for Tiger Aspect. Most actors are self-employed and effectively sell their services. What's confusing is that some actors are in fact salaried and do work for ITV. A good example of this would be the actors who are regular characters on Coronation Street and are on the ITV payroll. So when you consider this, it is totally reasonable to say that the websites I have listed do represent independent, verifiable and reliable sources. There are pictures of her, in character, on three of the websites and she is listed by name also. The ITV Press website has background information about her. Incidentally, it's generally accepted that 'bit part' actors can generally be identified by actors credits that list their role as 'man at bustop' or by the character just having a first name Fspinner 13:33, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- With the greatest respect, I don't. She appears in a TV show for ITV, produced by a production company. Neither ITV or the production company are independent sources, it's not difficult to work out. Even ignoring that, the sources are trivial, as evidenced by the "good deal" of information being a laughable two sentences. We're trying to create an encylopedia, not a directory of every two-bit struggling actor/actress that there's absolutely zero public interest in. Google search ignoring IMDB, Myspace and Wikipedia returns a grand total of 39 unique hits, so there's no interest. One Night In Hackney303 13:50, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- two-bit struggling actor/actress - well talk about you insisting on verifiable secondary sources!.... you hardly have any proof that this actress is 'two bit' or 'struggling', so there was no need to say that really was there? Anyway, good to see that you confirmed that she appears in an ITV show. Incidentally I disagree with your google search analysis. There are considerable number of hits from TV listings and laughable two sentences?, you obviously haven't read the ITV press release with her biog have you? Fspinner 14:45, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment If you take the time to read what I said, I did not describe Hobley as two bit or struggling, so kindly refrain from making false accusations. You disagree with my Google search analysis? What do you disagree with? The 39 unique hits? The lack of any non-trivial reliable sources in those 39 hits? The fact that all TV guides generally say is her name and that she appears in the show? I have not read the ITV press release given that the link to it is not in the article or on this page to the best of my knowledge, but that does not change the fact that the article is two sentences long. So perhaps you might like to improve the article instead of arguing over guidelines and policies which you seem rather oblivious to? One Night In Hackney303 14:58, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- We're trying to create an encylopedia, not a directory of every two-bit struggling actor/actress that there's absolutely zero public interest in. .....well, I thought that read pretty much like you were implying that this was what you considered this actress to be and it's there in black and white for others to judge but, hey, you've said you didn't describe her as such, so that's fair enough. I certainly don't want you to think I've been making false accusations about you Fspinner 15:18, 31 March 2007 (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.