Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Saige Thompson (3rd nomination)

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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 00:23, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Saige Thompson[edit]

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

Hopefully, our notability requirements are higher than they were in 2007–08 when this was last sent to AfD. Subject is a pretty clear WP:NACTOR fail (only one, at most two, "significant' roles, one on a very short-lived TV series, and the other a rather minor ABC Family miniseries, respectively). Also, WP:GNG fail – no significant (only passing) mentions in the usual trade places (e.g. just passing mentions at Variety and THR, no mentions in Entertainment Weekly at all). Does not pass our notability threshold – minor actors do not merit articles here. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 05:15, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 05:16, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 05:16, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not enough significant roles to meet the notability requirements for actors. Last time people argued a significant role was enough to pass, but our guidelines require "multiple" significant roles, and she does not have that.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:48, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:51, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:29, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- falls short of notability requirements and close to A7 material. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:01, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:02, 8 January 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.