Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Angela Jones

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. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:33, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Angela Jones[edit]

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

Minor actress -- her most significant role has been as a taxi driver in Pulp Fiction -- and the article's ONLY references are two film reviews and an actor listing. Calton | Talk 17:31, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Nomination is misleading - Jones had the starring role (alongside William Baldwin) in Curdled (1996), a film for which many reviews exist. Pulp Fiction may have been her most high-profile film (in a role written for her by Tarantino), but her starring roles in Curdled, Family Secrets, and House at the End of the Drive, and significant roles in others, means she has a lot more going for her than just playing a taxi driver in one film. --Michig (talk) 21:03, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hogwash. I'd say your rebuttal is what actually counts as misleading. According to WP:NACTOR, an actor is "presumed notable" -- though not proven -- if he or she:

Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions.
Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following.
Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment.

For point 1, you've got a small role in Pulp Fiction -- and no reliable source for the "written for her by Tarantino" factoid -- and a film for which the best you can say that reviews for it exist, so fail. For points 2 and 3, not even close. --Calton | Talk 03:17, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:54, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A bit of civility wouldn't hurt. Neither would going to Google and doing some searching rather than just looking at what's in the article. --Michig (talk) 06:13, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep One look at her IMDb settles this pretty clearly. [[1]] Sethie (talk) 23:54, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You'll have to do better than "Because I said so." --Calton | Talk 03:17, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete a bunch of minor roles does not add to notability. IMDb is not a reliable source, so it proves nothing.John Pack Lambert (talk) 08:23, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

She has clearly had major roles, so also having minor roles has no bearing on notability. --Michig (talk) 09:28, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:08, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A significant number of roles and those include major films. More than adequate indicia of notability. Meets NACTOR. Montanabw^(talk) 19:10, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - subject's roles meet WP:NACTOR. I've added two references. gongshow talk 23:21, 16 September 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.