Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pooky Quesnel

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) Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 00:16, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Pooky Quesnel

Pooky Quesnel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Not a notable person. She is an actress, and probably a good one. The article consists only of a list of jobs she has held. In her field this information is automatically given to us by the news media. That in itself does not really say anything about her and the article makes no assertion that she has any importance or influence besides just doing her job. Steve Dufour (talk) 16:36, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

• Weak keep based on apparently starring role in the series True Dare Kiss. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:58, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
• comment I have seen articles "kept" based on less third party coverage than this:all-of-us-knew-pooky-quesnel-would-be-famous-eventually although I am having difficulty finding anything that I find encyclopedic in reliable sources. Active Banana (^bananaphone 17:15, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

(its an opinion piece, but from a notable Philip Hensher profissional "opinionator".) Active Banana (^bananaphone 17:17, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

• Keep Notable actress for starring in whole series of Cardiac Arrest, Thief Takers and others. This is en encyclopaedia, does she need to be notable outside of her role? Stephenb (Talk) 19:58, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

• Keep - notable for her roles in notable productions, not the least of which is EastEnders. ukexpat (talk) 20:31, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
• Keep. Not a household name, but she at least scrapes[edit: passes] notability by way of significant coverage (much of it behind paywalls, e.g. [1]) of her roles over many years. Fences&Windows 23:52, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
  • I added sources - some of them definitely give significant coverage, there's at least three stories that focus on her in addition to the other mentions. Fences&Windows 02:05, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Oh, Steve Dufour - please don't use "importance or influence" as criteria for deletion again. You should know better. Fences&Windows 02:08, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
    • I would prefer that editors had the common sense to not write articles that have no value to the readers, who can get the same information on a show biz database site. 04:11, 13 January 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steve Dufour (talk • contribs)
      • Your opinion is that this article has no value - fortunately, your harsh judgement isn't based on policy and therefore carries no weight in this argument. I would prefer that editors found something better to do with their time than nominating perfectly reasonable articles for deletion, but we can't all have what we wish for. Fences&Windows 00:13, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
• Keep Sure it's preferred that we have perfect articles right out the gate... but it's why we call them newbs. Per improvements made since first nominated, both WP:ENT and WP:GNG are met. Just goes to show that what can be improved through regular editing, is never a decent call for deletion. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:29, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
  • My nomination did not mention any imperfection in the article. It is fine for what it is, raw data on a person's career. Steve Dufour (talk) 13:11, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
    • Fair enough.... but everything on Wikipedia is "raw data" and available elswhere. The difference is in how that "raw data" is presented contextually. At least least here we arrange it encyclopedically, neutrally, and provide sourcing. The article as nominated,[2] began doing just that... giving contextual information on the individual's background with a paragraph on the highlights of a career that allowed a presumption of her meeting WP:ENT. After improvements, it is cleaner, more encyclopedic, and better sourced to show the individual meeting WP:GNG as well. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 17:04, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:23, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

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.