Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jackie Sandler

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 redirect to Adam Sandler#Personal_life. (non-admin closure) ansh 666 19:06, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jackie Sandler[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:NACTOR, and had no accomplishments as a model. She has never had a major role on a film, and the article states in no uncertain terms that she only appears in her husband Adam Sandler's films (aside from her first role), so WP:NOTINHERITED also applies. MSJapan (talk) 18:28, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 16:03, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 16:03, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Just because her only performances to date are in Adam Sandler movies does not automatically trigger NOTINHERITED. Her filmography has to stand on its own merits, regardless of whether they happened to occur because she may ave had an inside track. Just because he stars doesn't mean he has complete control over casting, either. This is an inappropriate AfD if the argument is that her marriage renders her ineligible,as there are many examples of notable women being cast with their significant others or spouses as stars or as directors (for example, Eva Mendes, Milla Jovovich, Devayani (actress), Kate Beckinsale, etc. to say nothing of several far more famous individuals like Kate Winslet or Helena Bonham Carter) Montanabw ^(talk) 20:44, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, the actual argument is that she fails WP:NACTOR. Also, hate to point it out, but the vast majority of Adam Sandler's movies are produced by his production company Happy Madison, so yes, he does indeed have a say in the casting of his films. MSJapan (talk) 23:55, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:24, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete She has appeared in a lot of small parts, nothing that would make her notable, she fails the notability guidelines for actors.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:24, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:GNG. Article could use expansion, not deletion per WP:ATD. Hmlarson (talk) 00:24, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agree with Hmlarson, this article passes WP:GNG, but could be expanded. Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant 10:47, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, joe decker ^talk 01:51, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I am no longer sure but I think it; meets WP:GNG and WP:PERSON, she's played roles in quite a few films dating back to the 90s and a search on google books reveals 1. There's books about her and her works and 2. There's books that mention her (some trivially, others not). Mr rnddude (talk) 02:18, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Adam Sandler#Personal life This is an excellent case of "notability is not inherited". I see some votes above which say she passes GNG. However, if you notice carefully, almost every single article talks about her in context of her husband and this is essentially WP:INVALIDBIO. A subject cannot have its own article if the subject is primarily known as the spouse of a notable person. I tried to find out sources to see if the subject is independently notable and I failed. Here are the results of an exclusion search I did on Google news

"jackie sandler" -"adam" - 10 results
"adam sandler" -"jackie" - 205,000 results

From the above, we see that "Jackie Sandler" appears independently of Adam in only 10 results (and most of these trivially). Someone who is independently notable would have much more coverage.

Failing above, I tried to have a look at WP:NACTOR. The subject clearly doesn't satisfy criteria 2 and 3. Criteria 1 requires significant roles in multiple notable films. The subject has acted in multiple films but they have been small roles. Significant roles in multiple notable films is required and that is not satisfied here.

As the subject is not notable, I would have gone for a delete. But "Jackie Sandler" is a valid search term so I would prefer a redirect here. This is consistent with other AfDs of a similar nature - See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zachary Bogue (redirected to wife's article) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sadie Sandler (redirected to father's article). --Lemongirl942 (talk) 07:17, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Adam Sandler#Personal life. Previous points for removal are agreeable to me, but a redirect also makes sense for the ease of end users. I also took the liberty of search results for her name minus 'Adam', and there's pretty much none of relevance. She has no independent notability. KaisaL (talk) 19:31, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. No lead roles in those productions. She was in Pixels with about a big of a role as their kids. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:22, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is she an executive producer or have a leading role with Happy Madison productions? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:31, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

She'd have the former as a definite credit, so no. The latter probably doesn't matter; the head accountant also has a leading role in the company, but we don't have an article on that person just for that reason. MSJapan (talk) 16:24, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect, as per WP:NOTINHERITED – not independently notable, only notable in the context of her spouse. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:45, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, not enough material for a separate article, informations could be covered in Sandler's career. Cavarrone 14:54, 10 July 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.