Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sharyn Booth (Comedian)

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. Consensus suggests that this individual is not notable enough for inclusion; the arguments for keeping the article merely assert that she is notable, without much evidence. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:37, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sharyn Booth (Comedian)[edit]

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

Non-notable individual lacking substantial GHits and lacking any GNEWS. Appears to fail WP:ENT. ttonyb1 (talk) 05:41, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - i disagree and don't believe that this page needs to be deleted. It contains acurate information, strong sources and is properly referenced. It is about a real figure heavily involved and known in the Melbourne and national comedy scene and isnt hurting anybody. Timmyjob (talk) 08:39, 31 August 2009 (UTC)— Timmyjob (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment - Please help us understand how the article meets the criteria in WP:ENT. ttonyb1 (talk) 15:35, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response

-1.Has had significant roles in multiple commercially produced or significant films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions:The page clearly shows a major role in multiple stage performances

2.Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following. Significant following from not only the local and national comedy community but the comedy going public

3.Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment: has made multiple contributions to the feild of the comedy through writing and performing the mentioned festival shows and ongoing involvement in the industry as not only a performer and producing regular comedy nights in Melbourne Curryyeah (talk) 16:21, 31 August 2009 (UTC)— Curryyeah (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment –

1-Not sure this meets the criteria. Two solo acts and a trio? I do not see any evidence of major performances outside of festivals.

2-No evidence of a large base or a significant "cult" following. Large and significant are the keys words.

3-I am sorry, this does not even come close. ttonyb1 (talk) 16:45, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Additional note. None of the cited sources (in the "References" section) are reliable per Wikipedia guidelines, either. Either they're promotional in nature or self-published.147.70.242.54 (talk) 16:54, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE The site referenced is infact a respected national comedy news and gig information site aimed at comedy fans. It has not direct link to this entertainer in terms of its publishing. The official Melb comedy festival website, although promotional in nature, is also a credible source to prove the exisitence of their work. Curryyeah (talk) 17:31, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Obviously, I would like this page to stay for the same reasons as mentioned above. Otherwise, I would had never felt the need to create it. Thank You. Curryyeah (talk) 14:53, 31 August 2009 (UTC)— Curryyeah (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
NOTE The criteria states multiple works, and that is exactly what has been shown. The level of its significance or required amount isn't clearly measured or indicated. The size and signficance of the following or contribution of a person is also not clearly measured here. Curryyeah (talk) 17:26, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 23:14, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If you really look at the list of Austrlaian comedians, there a many pages with people of the same level and contribution that have had their page kept with no hassel. Why would this be made an exception? Timmyjob (talk) 05:29, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Other stuff exists. This is not a deletion discussion of the entire list of Australian comedians; this is a discussion on one particular article and its merits and weaknesses. —C.Fred (talk) 17:03, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the lack of multiple, in-depth reliable sources. I did find this article from The Age, but that's the only coverage I have been able to uncover. One review does not a WP:BLP make. Cunard (talk) 07:53, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep there seems to be a level of notability in Australia, and Melbourne in particular, which indicates a niche popularity and recognition. While I do not buy into the argument of "other subjects of similar notability", it does elicit the types of responses shown above. The article should be tagged for improvements and allowed to stay. --Stormbay (talk) 14:17, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While Stormbay might be right about niche popularity, the problem is that it isn't clearly verifiable. The review in The Age was too short to stand on its own in support of her. There certainly aren't enough sources to meet WP:GNG, and the panning in The Age doesn't get her over the WP:ENT hurdle. If additional sources are discovered, I am willing to reconsider this recommendation. —C.Fred (talk) 17:02, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not enough coverage for GNG, lacks any roles in notable productions, no real evidence of any popularity and no suggestion of any unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment. Duffbeerforme (talk) 11:38, 7 September 2009 (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.