Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ann Beach

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 no consensus. MBisanz ^talk 23:40, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Ann Beach

Ann Beach (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Actress who appears to have a number of small roles, but little of importance. Gsearch and gnews search not coming up with independent, reliable sources that show notability. Prod contested with comment "meets notabiliy[sic] criteria", but I'm not seeing how she does. Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:34, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:35, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
• Strong Keep - Passes notability threshold of WP:ENTERTAINER which requires "significant roles in multiple notable films". Over a 40+ year career, this actress has numerous and significant credits in numerous notable films and TV roles. Esasus (talk) 23:30, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

  Any chance you could point out some of the significant roles for us? I see a lot of appearances in single episodes of series and parts without a name. Thanks!--Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:53, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

  • Comment - I'm not sure whether or not she has had "significant roles in multiple notable films". However, that's a mere pointer. Reading above that, you'll see that "meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included." Basically, we need significant coverage about her in independent reliable sources. Currently, we do not have that. Imdb is not a reliable source and the yahoo link doesn't cut it either. - SummerPhD (talk) 19:21, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination. Single episodes make someone nothing more than a bit player. I also have to say that from having deal with Esasus on other articles and seeing his edits, I have to question if these votes and actions are even made in good faith, as he just claims everything he sees is obviously notable yet never gives any reason for it that comes anywhere close to meeting Wikipedia standards. Frankly, I think an admin should look into his behavior. DreamGuy (talk) 14:11, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
• Strong and Speedy Keep Her role as Sonia on Fresh Fields is notable--she is the primary supporting actress on a British sitcom that ran for 27 episodes from 1984-86. IMDB and the article only list her in 2 episodes--this is an error. She appeared in most,if not all, of them. Eauhomme (talk) 16:06, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Not sure supporting actress in one show is in itself notable, but before that's even a consideration perhaps you have a WP:RS to back up your claim? DreamGuy (talk) 18:39, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

• • Comment - Again, we need significant coverage in independent reliable sources. We don't have that. - SummerPhD (talk) 19:21, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Reply And we may not. I have looked online, and there is very little information on a series that was popular in the 1980's, but has not aged well. If you look at general information, it will show the cast list generally as Julia McKenzie, Anton Rodgers, Ann Beach, Ballard Berkeley. So it should be clear that getting third billing consistently on a cast list means you probably appeared in more than simply a minor role. I personally own six episodes of the show, and she is in all six. But, as I previously stated, she is listed only in two episodes on IMDB because the cast list there is incomplete. Another reason for my call for a keep is because, while she has not particularly had significant roles, she has had so many of them that she qualifies as a significant character actress. Eauhomme (talk) 06:01, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

• • • Comment That doesn't looks so much like third billing as it does only having two stars and the rest always being in alphabetical order (Beach before Berkeley, etc.). Moot argument anyway. DreamGuy (talk) 19:44, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
    • Comment - You are continuing to argue that she might meet under "significant roles in multiple notable films". However, this ignores the "meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included." This explanation is there because WP:ENTERTAINER is a guideline. Official policy, WP:V, makes it clear: "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found featuring significant coverage of a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." We do not have reliable, third-party sources featuring significant coverage of Ann Beach. - SummerPhD (talk) 15:07, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Reply To which I would cite WP:IAR because the issue is the inadequacy of a reliable source (such as IMDB), not the lack of one. Eauhomme (talk) 06:16, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

• • • • Comment - Since imdb is not a reliable source for anything beyond some screenwriting credits, I see no reason to ignore any rules. - SummerPhD (talk) 19:32, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - I am not persuaded that she does or does not meet the guidelines being cited. However, the article and my own searching do not demonstrate significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject (GNG). As a result, there is nothing that can be confidently said about her in a biography of a living person. - SummerPhD (talk) 19:21, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
• Comment - The criteria for WP:CREATIVE is "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television, stage performances, or other productions". Over her 40 year it is clear that she meets this criteria. Even if her British TV and film roles may not be well known to an American audience (USA attention is not a criteria), but even in the USA one can admit that her role in King Ralph is significant. Esasus (talk) 21:49, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment - To repeat: "meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included." Basically, we need significant coverage about her in independent reliable sources. Currently, we do not have that. Imdb is not a reliable source and the yahoo link doesn't cut it either. - SummerPhD (talk) 22:05, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment Those clearly are NOT significant roles. Not even close. I mean, for crying out loud, you use King Ralph as an example, but the overly detailed, 1,200+ word plot summary currently in that article doesn't even mention the character she played. That's beyond not significant at all and well into totally insignificant. I mean, come on, how can you even be seriously making these arguments? DreamGuy (talk) 22:48, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I am seriously making the above reasonable arguments; and User:DreamGuy, as you have been reminded so many times before, please be once again strongly reminded that WP:Civility is one of Wikipedia's core principles.Esasus (talk) 00:02, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Those arguments are not at all reasonable, as they directly contradict the rules that establish notability. Frankly, I thoght I was being civil in assuming that maybe that was a joke and not an intentional attempt to mislead people by asserting a notable role that clearly wasn't one. DreamGuy (talk) 15:43, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

• — Unionsoap (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Keep - long time British actress. Lots and lots of credits = a significant body of work = notable actress. Unionsoap (talk) 14:50, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Funny, another brand new editor as of only a few days whose only edits have been to participate in deletion votes and who instantly create a user page so the red link on his name goes away. Same thing happened recently over on some other article being defended by the same guy. Curious. The messages on the user page seems to be a copy of that other user. That user was determined to be a sockpuppet and stricken, doing same here. DreamGuy (talk) 15:43, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

HOW DARE YOU STRIKE MY VOTE. Your accusations are are false and your action is unjustifiable. I may be new to these discussions, but I know that your unilateral action to strike my vote is unacceptable behaviour and is a clear violation of WP:CIVIL. I note that you also struck my vote here [1] and in that instance your complaint was investigated and found to be baseless - resulting in you receiving a reprimand. I notice that you are sarcastic and argumentative with all editors who have a different opinion than yours, but I also notice that you hypocritically did not strike my vote when I agreed with your nomination for deletion here [2] and shared your opinion here [3]. Unionsoap (talk) 02:31, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, OK, so an anonymous IP "reprimanded" me -- LOL, like that means anything. To claim that it was investigated and proven false is an outright lie. I notice that after I pointed out the similarity that you went to change your user page so it was different from the other identified account engaged in vote fraud. Brand new users' votes typically don't count in AFDs specifically to avoid fraud. DreamGuy (talk) 15:00, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I unstruck the !vote per WP:AGF. Even if you were an SPA, the proper course of action would be to apply the {{spa}} template, not strike the !vote. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 14:52, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

The SPA tag is a little vague and not an exact fit for "new" users suddenly going around voting, but since you object to the strikethrough that used to be standard procedure, I've gone and tagged it that way. DreamGuy (talk) 15:00, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

It is disruptive to a discussion if one editor feels the need to try to win every point. It is more so when one editor adds into a discussion his opinions of the motives behind each editor's comments. It is even more so disruptive when an editor enters into uncivil behaviour (such as negatively labeling a new editor and striking out his vote). I would think that DreamGuy, who has a long history of of socketpuppetry and uncivil behaviour (see 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13. 14 15 16 17 18 19 .... I could go on), would have learned by now to be more prudent with his comments. Esasus (talk) 22:05, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

• Strong Keep 40 years Britisch actress. She's role in Tales of the Unexpected is good. There are many other articles should be deleted before. The article needs only to be improved. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 23:20, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Do you have a REASON to vote keep that actually fits our rules? DreamGuy (talk) 15:43, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

• Neutral Given the longevity of her career, I suspect print references may exist offline. Most of the online sources I found were primarily about the death of her daughter and naught but passing mentions, but I did see hints of notability in an except from this New York Times article from 1958 ("Ann Beach was chosen for the star part of a problem teen-ager.") but it's behind a subscription shield so I can't say for sure how significant it is. Poechalkdust (talk) 09:51, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment We have no significant coverage in reliable sources. That sources might exist is hardly the point. If sources are discovered, we'll have something to write. Until then, we have nothing. - SummerPhD (talk) 16:47, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

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.