Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oakley Kown

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 . While an argument for WP:CREATIVE was made, it was a viewpoint not shared by any other participants, and consensus otherwise appears to be that the article fails relevant notability guidelines. Aoidh (talk) 08:05, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oakley Kown

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Fails GNG and NACTOR, sources contain mostly trivial mentions. The third source [1] is written by the subject herself. Fancy Refrigerator ^(talk) 11:47, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, and Australia. Fancy Refrigerator ^(talk) 11:47, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A corresponding article simple:Oakley Kwon was deleted two days ago, created by a different user, however, the contents are exactly the same. Fancy Refrigerator ^(talk) 11:56, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:14, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the simple fact that Oakley KOWN isn't a person and non-notable. Kwon might be, but you can't use a spelling mistake to try and keep your article here. Oaktree b (talk) 20:10, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The award might be notable, but "neighbour" and "nurse" aren't. Random person in a scene doesn't get you ACTOR. Oaktree b (talk) 20:12, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The film received the award, not specifically the actress. The fact is misrepresented here. Fancy Refrigerator ^(talk) 20:46, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So ZERO notability. Oaktree b (talk) 21:59, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, her name is spelt wrong, according to this https://www.smh.com.au/culture/tv-and-radio/chapter-and-diverse-sbs-s-hungry-ghosts-goes-all-out-for-authenticity-20200810-p55kak.html LibStar (talk) 00:11, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clearly fails WP:NACTOR and WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 23:58, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, Oaktree and LibStar. Cabrils (talk) 03:02, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think she is the star or a star of Hungry Ghosts and therefore passes WP:CREATIVE C3. To pass 3, she needs to play an important role in something that got multiple independent reviews. Sources that support that follow:

https://www.smh.com.au/culture/tv-and-radio/chapter-and-diverse-sbs-s-hungry-ghosts-goes-all-out-for-authenticity-20200810-p55kak.html
https://theconversation.com/hungry-ghosts-review-a-culturally-rich-supernatural-drama-143191
https://www.sbs.com.au/ondemand/tv-series/hungry-ghosts
https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2020/aug/24/hungry-ghosts-review-a-ghostly-love-letter-to-the-vietnamese-diaspora

I see that the article was deleted, but not because anyone said it was not notable, but because the machine translation was flawed. So I don't think this recreation with typo in the title has been done the right way, but that's not the question we need to answer at AFD. CT55555(talk) 04:26, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CREATIVE 3 says "The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work." If you have acted in a film it's not the same as co-creating, WP:CREATIVE applies more to film directors/writers/producers. Oakley needs to pass WP:NACTOR. The Guardian reference above makes no mention of Oakley. LibStar (talk) 04:34, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Starring in a work is co-creating it, I don't see how starring in something can be seen as separate thing from creating it. The Guardian reference illustrates that the work receive critical acclaim, which is a necessary part of C3. It's about her work, not about her, which is what I needed to show, to argue that WP:CREATIVE was passed. CT55555(talk) 04:40, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've started a discussion here Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(people)#WP:CREATIVE_point_3. Thanks. LibStar (talk) 04:45, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I respect your right to disagree with me and seek other views on that, but I also think I've made a reasonable assessment. If your disagreement with me is informed by policy or guidance, I hope you will say so. CT55555(talk) 04:53, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CREATIVE doesn’t apply. She took part in the film’s production as an actress, which is different from the sense that she co-created the film. Fancy Refrigerator ^(talk) 11:34, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I tagged the article with {{Undisclosed}}, given that the page creator admitted to be working for Oakley. See Special:Diff/1149494659. Fancy Refrigerator ^(talk) 12:19, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment lean delete, doesn't look like there's enough here to meet WP:NACTOR. Also, looks like someone has created the page with the correct spelling - Oakley Kwon.-KH-1 (talk) 23:34, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That does change things for me. We should probably redirect this one to the correct spelling. However, expecting someone will propose that for deletion, I'll hold off for now before changing my !vote. CT55555(talk) 23:58, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I redirected Oakley Kwon to this page with the incorrect spelling. I also started a discussion at COIN, concerning activities by several paid editors/SPAs promoting Oakley Kwon. Fancy Refrigerator ^(talk) 02:09, 14 April 2023 (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.