Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Taylor Hickson

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 speedy keep. Withdrawn - This ended up getting waaaay too confusing so am closing however I'll leave it in articlespace where hopefully it'll be improved (or i'll do it at somepoint). (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 14:01, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Taylor Hickson[edit]

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

This was moved to Draft in April where it ended up abandoned, I nominated it at MFD and was told to basically move it back and AFD it, Anyway non notable actress, Can't find any evidence of notability, Fails GNG, –Davey2010^Talk 03:11, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning delete. The subject comes close to meeting Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Entertainers dot point 1 "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions", possibly does but the 2016 productions may be too recent. Information available to date appears better suited to IMDB (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm6883785/). --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:33, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Information available to date appears better suited to IMDB - meaning the information from current sources doesn't satisfy the WP:GNG, all of the information is appropriate for IMDB. New sources may make the subject notable, and on recreation, the current information here being deleted can be found in the IMDB refrences. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:06, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'd say that being one of the main actors (leading characters) in a mainstream TV series (Aftermath (2016 TV series)) makes them close to passing the above criteria, but the problem is the multiple requirement. The two other main roles she had are in movies that have not been deemed notable yet, at least in so far as nobody bothered to create Wikipedia articles on them. If someone thinks one of those two movies is notable, she would probably classify, and I'd change my vote to weak keep (ping me if you make an argument for movie notability and I'll reconsider my vote). PS. If the creator bothers to participate in the discussion (sadly, unlikely as this seems like write-and-run case), we could also consider usefying it, given that it is a likely case of WP:TOOSOON; she'll probably be notable in a year or two when she gets another important role. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:43, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This was unilaterally userfied from the mainspace, or else I'd take a position like I did at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Luke Cutforth (3rd nomination). I'm not sure it is acceptable to move a page to the mainspace and directly proceed to nominate it for deletion even given the circumstances.— Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 05:33, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well with the greatest of respect once someone at MFD puts keep that's it - It's kept! regardless of what the nominator has to say so to save me and SJ arguing with each other over it and essentially having my time wasted I listened to him and sent it here, I wasn't putting up a fight when admins at MFD don't give a crap about the deletion rationale anyway. –Davey2010^Talk 14:36, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
On 22 April 2016, it should not have been unilaterally draftified, it should have been nominated at AfD. Davey has appropriately corrected the situation.

For reference, User:Oshwah's 07:37, 22 April 2016‎ move summary was:

"Article is imcomplete, and I have notability concerns (see talk page). Moving to draft space will be less WP:BITEy compared to tagging."

and his Talk:Taylor Hickson post was:

" This person doesn't appear to pass WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO. I'm iffy about WP:ACTOR, since she did act in some major films (although I'm not sure if she played "major roles" as WP:ACTOR requires). The only two sources I've located are this and this. Article is obviously created by an editor with COI issues as well. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 07:32, 22 April 2016 (UTC)"

The BITE concerns are best addressed by talking to the author on their talk page. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:02, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:41, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:41, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Walton (talk) 17:53, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:04, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But weak keep. The first and second references in the article provide secondary source material directly discussing the subject. These references seem reputable reliable and independent, though I am not familiar with them. This might be well revisited in a couple of years, per Piotr. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:15, 27 November 2016 (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.