Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Audrey Dwyer

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, leaning towards keep. BD2412 T 00:41, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Audrey Dwyer[edit]

[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)

Subject of article is an actor that fails to satisfy any criterion from WP:NACTOR and generally lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources, hence a GNG & WP:ENT fail also. A before search shows hits in unreliable sources that appear to be self published. Celestina007 (talk) 20:53, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 20:53, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 20:53, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 20:53, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 20:53, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Manitoba-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 20:53, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - In my opinion, WP:NACTOR is the wrong criteria to look at Dwyer under. She is more notable for her writing and for her work as a theatre practicioner (associate artistic directorships, artistic director, directing). Therefore I suggest WP:CREATIVE. I'll specifically point to crit. 3 for creating Calpurnia, which has multpile independant reviews, and writing The D Cut. Here are 3 Calpurnia reviews (because multiple means 2 or more) as proof: Globe and Mail, NOW Toronto, and Toronto Star. In terms of meeting GNG, at the very least there's this Winnipeg Free Press article. I know list-based articles don't always count in terms of sigcov, but CBC named her one of "31 Black Canadian female playwrights you need to know". In my opinion, she pretty easily meets an SNG (WP:CREATIVE), so I think it's a keeper. Samsmachado (talk) 22:28, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment — @Samsmachado, first off thanks for creating the article. Now, let’s get to analysis @Globe and Mail required me to login before reading. The Winnipeg Free Press article appears to be a legit reliable one which actually does justice to subject of your article but I am afraid one source isn’t good enough for WP:GNG. The 31-black canadian female playwrights you need to know is a list article & list articles do next to nothing in satisfying WP:GNG as they are mere listings that don’t discuss their subjects(names listed) with significant coverage. Overall you have just one decent source discussing subject of your article. In your defense you have pointed to three reviews of their work & claimed they satisfy no 3 of creative, Now if 3 reviews of a subject’s work supersedes WP:GNG is why I have opened this AFD, so the community can decide this for themselves. My job here is done I won’t be badgering you or anyone as this is indeed one of those cases in which I’m curious to see the outcome. I should also state that SNG’s are not necessarily > WP:GNG especially in a scenario as this where only 1 out 4 criterion’s are barely met. Celestina007 (talk) 23:03, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was aiming to prove meeting WP:CREATIVE, an SNG, not GNG. Sorry for any confusion. Criteria 3 of WP:CREATIVE: The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series) or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. I provided 3 (ie. multiple) independant reviews of a significant work created (written and directed) by Dwyer. The Globe and Mail, the Toronto Star, and NOW Toronto are all legit reviews. This explicitly meets WP:CREATIVE criteria 3. If you think that meeting an SNG such as WP:CREATIVE is insignificant reasoning for keeping an article, that is your prerogative, but please state that explicitly for the sake of clarity. Samsmachado (talk) 23:16, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Samsmachado, I was expanding on my rationale in the same time you were replying so there’s a bit of Ec there, It’s basically what you were asking me to do. I’m also curious about this one. Celestina007 (talk) 23:26, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for explaining. I appreciate that you're curious as to the outcome and I really don't mean to badger you here. I'm mostly expanding on things I left out of my original vote that I think are relevant in light of your comments. I think it's a little unfair to characterize the whole argument for keeping as barely meeting 1 of 4 SNG criterion. I was just clearly outlining those reviews as one example of how she meets CREATIVE3. Every other play she has directed is cited with a review in the WP article, many of those plays have multiple independant reviews. So there are plenty of cases of meeting CREAT3. I would argue that the article also meets crit. 4, part c of WP:CREATIVE and crit. 1 of WP:ANYBIO via Dwyer's Dora Awards for the collectively created children's play One Thing Leads to Another. But I feel that the awards route is a weaker argument because the awards recognize Dwyer's significant contributions as part of a collective rather than as an individual. (There is potentially a (albeit weak) case for meeting WP:ENT (even though I said it wasn't necessarily the appropriate criteria) via her theatre credits. But, that's weak.) Samsmachado (talk) 23:47, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Samsmachado, my point of view is for we to consider someone notable WP:GNG has to be fulfilled. Surely certain SNG’s supersede GNG & a grand example would be WP:PROF as most academics are reserved & aren’t always in the spotlight, but the subject of your article is an actor & writer and more often than not always in the spotlight, so I’m not sure why locating reliable sources directly discussing her is becoming a daunting task. Like I said certain SNG’s like NPROF supersede GNG but as for CREATIVE? I honestly don’t think so, especially when only one out of four criterion from CREATIVE is met I’m sorry I’m repeating that. I think at this juncture we should both go to rest now. It’s 1:09am in my country & I have to be up by 4:00am for work. Celestina007 (talk) 00:14, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Celestina007 I'm not sure why you pointed out that the Globe and Mail article requires registration. That requirement is entirely immaterial to the task at hand here - even if its an entirely offline source you should AGF that it is relevant. In any case, I've added Internet Archive links to both of the Globe and Mail articles so readers so inclined can read them without registration. Personally I think there is plenty of coverage of this playwright to support notability, and my Google searches picked up even more stuff that could be added, so I vote keep. --Krelnik (talk) 13:41, 24 September 2020 (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.