Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carly Bondar (actress)

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 delete. No evidence provided that Ms. Bondar is notable. lifebaka++ 19:22, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Carly Bondar (actress)[edit]

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

Non-notable bit actress. Blueboy 96 04:44, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notable Character within the show iCarly : Valerie Theturtleguy (talk) 05:47, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Notable in the theatre world as well, if you google her name, she has dozens of pages. Her wiki article is incomplete, only shows a few credits. She has a fairly substantial fan-base. Youtube based as well. knowledgeisalwayskey —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.54.41.138 (talk) 20:32, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Carly Bondar (born January 19, 1992) is a Canadian born actress, currently residing in Hollywood, California. She is most known in the world of film for her role as Valerie on the Nickelodeon television series iCarly and in the theatre world for her off-broadway role as Tina Denmark in Ruthless! The Musical. After years of stage work on the east coast, her Hollywood career began in 2004 with a series of national commercials, which led to roles in film and television. In 2004, she made an appearance alongside Hailey Anne Nelson, Dylan Sprouse, Cole Sprouse, Spencer Breslin, and Alyson Stoner as Dr. Seuss received his star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame. She has since been linked to Nathan Kress and Alix Kermes.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:22, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to the three posters above: If she is so notable, could you please add some references to the article to prove it? YouTube is no good. IMDb is no good. Twitter and FaceBook are no good. Look at WP:RS to see what is good. Peridon (talk) 23:21, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why is IMDb no good? It is the actor database. You cannot fake credits on it, it's legitimate. Most kid actors who have pages on here do not have sources that extend beyond IMDb. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.54.41.138 (talk) 06:46, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen cases where the IMDb link for someone turned out to be a totally different person, and so far as I am aware the info is user supplied, and it is definitely not guaranteed accurate by IMDb. They will take down anything obscene or defamatory that is pointed out top them, but do not seem to check otherwise. I seem to remember a case where the IMDb link appeared to be the only evidence for a person's existence. We need more coverage. Independent coverage. The IMDb link in question does appear to be the person in question, but tells us absolutely nothing regarding notability. You can get on IMDb for playing Second Footman in Act II Scene 3 of Ethelred Crum's 'Mint Sauce' (which ran for three performances at the Very Small Theatre in Downby-in-the-Swamp). What other articles have is irrelevant - see WP:OTHERSTUFF. We mightn't have caught up with them yet. By the way, repeating the article here is not a very good way of commenting. Look at WP:RS. Prove us wrong. Peridon (talk) 13:00, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The joke disproves the assertion. It is easy to see that 2nd Footman etc is not notable, therefore it is as easy to eliminate an IMDb citation that does not in fact show notability as it is to find IMDb citations which do show notability. IMDb is at least complete; my nickname for AllMovie etc is AllFail, because they are so woefully incomplete (Alan Lee on IMDb. AllFail almost completely failing to show Alan Lee). Rotten Tomatoes is even worse: there is nothing at that site that is not PoV, and I have seen one movie's ratings (a subjective rating of the number of 'positive' and 'negative' reviews) attached to the review lists (more PoV) for another movie. The only source that comes close to IMDb's coverage is Metacritic; because it only deals in box office numbers, I won't say it surpasses IMDb, except for that one type of use. As with all IMDb criticism, assertions are made with no evidence, such as "They will take down anything obscene or defamatory that is pointed out top them, but do not seem to check otherwise", in the face of evidence to the contrary. I can only assume that the four-paragraph scrupulously-worded disclaimer on the 'Infosource' page on IMDb is as far as WP editors who Want to Believe in IMDb unreliability have pursued the subject. Surely they have never seen the two sentences at AllFail, that more than equally reduces the shiny veneer of professionalism to dingy reality: "AMG gets information from a variety of sources. We look for any pertinent information available on the packaging of videos, promotional materials, press releases, watching the movies, etc." Anarchangel (talk) 01:03, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. There are no hits from a Google News search, and I've done a general search, but I've not been able to find reliable sources. A search for 'ruthless "carly bondar"' only turns up 4 possibly reliable sources that discuss her in any detail, but they are only brief sections of reviews of the play: [1], [2], [3], [4]. I don't think that is enough for notability. To establish notability, basically you need indepedent, reliable sources (newspapers would be the obvious example), that provide significant coverage of her. Silverfish (talk) 21:50, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:39, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I found this community newspaper review that provides a little coverage about her role in a high school play. But there is no significant coverage about her in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 17:41, 14 February 2011 (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.