Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Olivia Harkin

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 Merged to C/o The Bartons during the discussion; this seems to be rolling in line with the consensus so I won't interfere with it. Stifle (talk) 11:51, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Olivia Harkin[edit]

[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)

Does not meet WP:GNG, WP:PEOPLE / WP:NACTOR. Before showed mentions, promos, cast listings etc, but not WP:SIGCOV that addresses the subject directly and in-depth. // Timothy :: talk 10:48, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 10:48, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 10:48, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Yes, I'm this article's original author so naturally I'd vote for Keep or I wouldn't have gone through the trouble of writing it, right? However I honestly believe this should be kept: I think it's about as in-depth as one can get without violating privacy (as she's not currently a celebrity of sorts) on an actress that made an impact on children's TV outside of the USA but has done nothing "notably" (as far as the Wikipedia guidelines are concerned) after that. I listed her work in theatre but that was edited away (also not 'noteable' as I referred to it as amateur theatre; I'm currently trying to cite a source that says it was semi-professional).

So, honest request for feedback here, not a flame: what would you consider in-depth enough to make this qualify?

Sjokhazard :: talk 13:13, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

'Edit to the above': cite found (I believe) by only listing theatrical productions classified as "Pro-Am" (and not "Amateur") by AusStage; removed the line about her career in amateur theatre as it indeed does not add do notability.

Question to the more experienced editors here: I am a newbie (I understand I'm not to be bitten... :)) and am struggling to find a way to get this information on Olivia Harkin on Wikipedia (as she is mentioned in an article that appear to be notable). Is creating a permastub a good idea? Should I include the information from this entry into the page that is considered notable?

--Sjokhazard (talk) 12:13, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: Hi Sjokhazard, first don't worry this happens a lot. I'd be happy to try and help and change my vote to keep if you can find sources. Otherwise you can request it be moved to your Drafts, which I would also support. The guidelines you should read are WP:RS, WP:IS, WP:GNG, WP:BASIC and WP:NACTOR. These tell you how to meet the requirements.

What Wikipedia is looking for is basically two articles, by publications that are completely independent and non-promotional that cover the actress (not the productions or shows) directly and in depth. Examples would be two newspaper or magazine articles about the person (not interviews, but they can contain short parts that are quotes) and their career. They don't need to solely be about the actress alone, but they need to discuss her work in-depth and directly, not just the fact that she was part of certain shows. Blogs don't count and neither do sites that produce articles that are promotions. A source where an editor reviews and vets the material. Where actors get stuck a lot of the time is the articles are mainly about the show they are in and don't have a significant amount of information about the actress or the material is an interview or something else intended to promote someone or something, rather than an independent source.

It's completely unnecessary to include private information and this wouldn't in anyway help notability. Since this is a child, I believe it's especially important to protect their privacy.

I'd be happy (along with anyone else here to look at any sources and tell you what I think. The decision is no one person's; its a group consensus.

You mention the amateur theater, remember its not sources primarily about the production, you're looking for but articles primarily about the actress. If she received significant coverage about her directly and in-depth by a professional journalist / publication, that is not promotional, for her work in amateur theater, this can be used.

One other very important item. It appears you may (I could be wrong) be a friend, associate or working in some way on behalf of this person (paid or unpaid). If that's true, it's not a problem, but you do need to declare it on your userpage (not declaring it is a huge problem). Other editors can then help you make sure the article is well-sourced and written in a neutral point of view. It's important to remember this is an encyclopedia, not a social media platform or a promotional website.

This can be a lot for younger actors to find, for a lot of them, its just too soon and in a few years they will have plenty of sources.

I'd leave any further questions or sources here for others to comment on but you're free to post on my talk page as well. I will help as much as I can. I'm sure this is a very talented young person with a bright future.

Best wishes from Los Angeles. // Timothy :: talk 14:45, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hi TimothyBlue, thank you for the in depth feedback; I appreciate that a lot! To be very clear about the last bit: I don't know her personally and am not working for her (paid or unpaid). All mentions about her work are from public resources (AustLit and AusStage, IMDb and a few books about Australian TV I own). She's also not a child anymore (she was born in the 1970's, but so far she did her most public acting work when she was a child). Just thought I'd make that clear to prevent any misunderstanding.

The reason I'm so vocal about this article is that it's part of a series of articles I had planned to write after a did research on a show Olivia Harkin was in for the Dutch Wikipedia; I noticed the English edition didn't have an entry for her so I decided to write one. The Dutch edition of Wikipedia doesn't have the same guidelines for articles as the English one has, so it's a bit confusing at times.

Two of the articles (including this one) have been marked AfD so far, so I guess a small part of my vocality is frustration.

But I've read the guidelines you've linked to and I agree that this article doesn't hold up. So I'd be happy with it being moved to drafts and I'll see if I can find two published independant, non promotional articles about her.

Best wishes from Nijmegen, The Netherlands! Sjokhazard (talk) 04:46, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to closer: I would support moving this to Drafts if the creator says they would like more time to develop the article. // Timothy :: talk 14:45, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 14:58, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Draftify - After a BEFORE search I could not find any significant coverage WP:SIGCOV in reliable sources WP:RS to verify notability. Does not pass criteria for GNG, NACTOR, ANYBIO nor BASIC at this time. Netherzone (talk) 15:42, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not enough credits to be notable for NACTOR nor are there reliable sources. Trillfendi (talk) 18:36, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Boneymau (talk) 03:24, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to C/o The Bartons where she has a significant role. Reasonable search term. Not enough for a stand alone article. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:07, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to C/o The Bartons is acceptable for me as well. Preferable to deletion. Sjokhazard (talk) 15:39, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge anything new as suggested. Arguably, because she was in "all twelve episodes" of a TV show, she might be notable. Bearian (talk) 20:17, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge I agree with Bearian; best option proposed yet. I'll execute the merge if no one opposes; will have to look into how to do that (and the redirect from this to C/o The Bartons) as I've never done it before, so bear with me for the day. Sjokhazard (talk) 07:40, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge executed Now Olivia Harkin redirects to C/o The Bartons#Olivia Harkin, which is a new section containing most of the original content of Olivia Harkin (had to edit it a bit for it to make sense and to make it fit into the layout of C/o The Bartons). Sjokhazard (talk) 06:09, 11 September 2020 (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.