Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Karen Pittman

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 keep. (non-admin closure) — Yash^talk stalk 00:04, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Karen Pittman[edit]

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

Was deprodded with the rationale: that prods were "not for "award-winning actresses who have starred on Broadway"". However, the article doesn't even state what "award" she has won. This is definitely borderline for me since she has had a significant role in a Broadway production, but WP:NACTOR states, "1.Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions". Other than that one role, she's had parts, none of which, from what I can tell, are significant. The role in Luke Cage definitely doesn't appear significant. And the role in The Americans is also a minor supporting role. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:09, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete one major role is not enough to pass the notability requirements for actors.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:16, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:33, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:33, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No enough (yet, maybe one day) to pass WP:NACTOR or WP:GNG. Edwardx (talk) 19:03, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I'm finding quite a bit of coverage for her roles and it looks like one of the plays she's been in, King Liz, should be able to justify its own article - it just hasn't been written yet. She's also performed in multiple episodes of two major series, enough to where her character is mentioned in an overview/review for one of the episodes of The Americans and in this overall review of Luke Cage. She's not a hugely major player in the acting world, but I think that there's enough to justify her inclusion. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 19:29, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I also found the award she won, the Theatre World Award. It looks like it's just big enough to give some notability, albeit not enough to keep on that basis alone. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 19:41, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I see multiple in-depth articles in WP:RS. I added one for the HuffPo. Meets WP:GNG.198.58.162.176 (talk) 01:18, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Sufficient coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. Funcrunch (talk) 02:47, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Justified by secondary sources.--Ipigott (talk) 08:01, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:31, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:31, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Adequate coverage found to justify notability. jxm (talk) 15:59, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sufficient coverage established. The Drover's Wife (talk) 18:14, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. as per above.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:02, 17 February 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.