Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kendal Nagorcka

Add links
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 redirect to The Shak. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 20:42, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kendal Nagorcka[edit]

Kendal Nagorcka (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article of actor known primarily for one role in an Australian television show consists of list of roles of anonymous or "unknown" people and relying upon a self-published promotional site for the bulk of the citations. Not finding significant information about Nagorcka's notability outside of her role of Picasso in reliable sources I am still convinced that redirecting is the appropriate action. The article consists of a one sentence lede, a list of roles she played, and a two sentence mention of her leaving the show. Twice I've attempted to redirect to the series, but both attempts were reverted; so here it is. B.Wind (talk) 13:33, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • KEEP The majority of the sites are not promotional or fansites and by the section WP:ANYBIO"2.The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field and since Kendal Nagorcka has made a widely recongnized contribution the article stands as a biography suited to wikipedia WP:ENTERTAINER 1.1.Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productionsShe has appeared in many notable Movies,Plays,Tv Shows and Musicals WP:ENTERTAINER 2.Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following.As B.Wind said self-published promotional site for the bulk of the citations A self-Published promo site can also mean 'fan site' so WP:ENTERTAINER 2.Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following would state this article as notable with so many fan site refrences.

Matt-tastic (talk) 02:56, 13 April 2010 (UTC) Matt-tastic (talk) 03:12, 13 April 2010 (UTC) Matt-tastic (talk) 05:52, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • It should be pointed out that the above (the result of ten consecutive edits) is from the originator and sole contributor of prose to the article. The article itself consists of a two-sentence lede (the second being "Her dress is heavily criticised"), a table of roles played by the subject, a sentence mentioning her departure from her primary (only?) source of notability, and a section of "references": 8 of the 13 from a promotional website promoting the Harvest Rain Theatre Company (not a reliable source per WP:RS), flickr (a user-supplied photo site), a promotional page for The Shak from Nine Network (which might be considered reliable, but doesn't demonstrate her notability outside the series), a link to a TV blog (blogs are generally non-notable), an announcement for Pyramid that doesn't mention Kendal Nagorcka at all, and (finally) the imdb (which is not a reliable source by WP:RS). Thus there is still no support by reliable sources in the article for notability of Kendal Nagorcka outside the series. Fansites and self-promotion cannot be used to demonstrate her notability sufficient enough for WP:CREATIVE and WP:ENT - coverage of these by reliable sources independent of them is needed to sustain it. It should also be mentioned that merely appearing in a movie or a series is not sufficient for the notability guidelines: coverage of them in independent media is necessary. B.Wind (talk) 17:57, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Speedy keep The Nominator has since redirected other cast members of the shak Libby Campbell and Jacqueline Duncan and the user is showing intrest in Beau Walker's article claiming "notable outside of The Shak? Demonstrate it!"I tried to assume good faith however I will not allow notable articles to be deleted while some even less notable or simmilair articles such as

Remain Matt-tastic (talk) 06:04, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • I have crossed out Matt-tastic's vote above because he has already voted once. Please don't vote multiple times. SnottyWong talk 14:28, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to The Shak per Blanchardb above. Note that I am contributing to this AfD because User:Matt-tastic asked me to (along with two other people) on my talk page. Matt, if you were looking for a Keep vote from me, then your canvassing efforts have backfired. SnottyWong talk 14:28, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per Blanchardb, I was also canvassed on my talk page, although he was specific in not asking me to vote any certain way. Burpelson AFB (talk) 23:25, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I removed the rescue tag from atop the AFD discussion and placed it on the article, as I believe that is where Matt-tastic intended it. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 02:28, 17 April 2010 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Kendal_Nagorcka&oldid=1080186375"