Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alisha Newton

Alisha Newton[edit]

AfDs for this article:

[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)

Not yet notable per WP:ENTERTAINER or WP:NACTOR. None of the cited sources are considered reliable. I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject to meet WP:ENT/WP:GNG— Preceding unsigned comment added by Raqib Sheikh (talk • contribs) 00:39, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 April 11. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:57, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Just noting that this account has only been registered for an hour and their only edits have been to start this AFD. No editing on any other Wikimedia projects either so I'm not sure how they know policy abbreviations. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:23, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, Television, and Canada. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:17, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Heartland (Canadian TV series): probably her most well known role, trivial amount of coverage [1], [2], outside of that, only CBC promotional material. Oaktree b (talk) 13:59, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I guess it's not about her well known role, but the fact that all the cited sources in this page aren't considered reliable, as per the Wikipedia's reliable sources list:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources 103.237.36.24 (talk) 16:52, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm ok if it gets !deleted as well, I didn't see coverage that I'd use to build an article. Oaktree b (talk) 18:16, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If that is so, would you please recommend deletion for this article in this talk page. For some reason, this AFD hasn't produced much discussion as of yet and I'm not sure how Wikipedia will deal with such nomination whose discussion page doesn't even have one recommendation. Raqib Sheikh (talk) 11:25, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:49, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reliable sources or coverages to build an article. Izzac Leiberheir (talk) 03:43, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Izzac Leiberheir, you barely joined here in less than six days, and after two edits here, you jumped to deletion. Hmmm, is there anything we don't know here? — Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 02:14, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have also looked into the article and I frankly agree with the nomination. Couldn't find a single reference from a reliable source. Ashik Rahik (talk) 05:56, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Most of the sources if not all were based on a notable film. I was also thinking of the nominations when WP:ACTOR said, "multiple and lead roles". I became skeptic if her roles in the films other than Heartland (inclusively too). But the film.is notable and she was much credited for it. I have no other option that this meets notability guidelines.Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 02:08, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:NACTOR has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions. Theroadislong (talk) 07:37, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Theroadislong, appearing in multiple films without verifiability doesn't meet notability. Besides, almost all the sources were centralized to reviews or mention of her on the film, Heartland and remember, that isn't significant coverages. While Wikipedia is not perfect, redirect seems to work here per her acting non or less lead roles. Unless the article has been covered for playing a particular role in two or more films (considered notable per WP:NFILM), it should be kept, if not —redirect per WP:ATD. — Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 10:08, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Consensus currently seems split between redirect and delete.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 13:43, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the sources here look good enough. And here's another one from a major newspaper in 2013. A decade of media coverage! And really, 10 seasons in a major national TV series - I'm not sure why we are here. Nfitz (talk) 16:14, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are you sure the sources are reliable? Because they don't seem reliable to me, as per Wikipedia's reliable source list: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources - Wikipedia. None of the cited sources within the article are on the list. And as per my knowledge about Wikipedia, when an article does not have reliable sources as references, which is when some or at least one these sources is not cited, then there's a big reason to delete the article. Raqib Sheikh (talk) 05:20, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are you really suggesting, User:Raqib Sheikh that a 120-year old Postmedia broadsheet is not a reliable source? That list came about to document bad sources. The Toronto Star - the largest newspaper in the nation, and the paper of record in Toronto isn't there as well. Neither is The Gazette - the largest English-language paper in Quebec. Would you discount those? Their lack of presence on that list simply indicates no one has ever felt a need to question it! Nfitz (talk) 20:55, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]