Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chelsea Ricketts

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 moved to Draft:Chelsea Ricketts, pending potential resolution of notability concerns. BD2412 T 00:06, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chelsea Ricketts[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)

Non notable actor, with only external link as IMDb. Deprodded by an anonymous editor, but with no reliable sources added since. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 20:22, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 20:22, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 20:22, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 20:22, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 20:22, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 20:22, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 20:22, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 20:22, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 20:22, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I am seeing sources interviewing her about The Amityville Murders, which despite being a red link, has multiple reviews as seen here. She is also interviewed in her hometown as seen here -- not sure how to gauge local coverage. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 20:53, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not meeting any WP:NACTOR notability guidelines, having had mostly minor/episodic roles. Although there are 4 reviews for the above redlinked film, other than the reviews stating she had a role, they did not talk about her. Should her career blossom into something more noteworthy wouldn't object to reviving the article.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 21:51, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the other proposed source, interviews of the subject, cannot be used to pass GNG. She is not notable, and I suspect several of the works she appeared in are not notable either.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:26, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the user who endorsed the PROD. Along with essentially being an unreferenced BLP aside from IMDB, my WP:BEFORE search couldn't come up with anything substantive, aside from your normal database listings. --MuZemike 15:46, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not appear to meet WP:NACTOR, and there is no coverage that would allow for a WP:BLP to be justified. --Kinu ^t/_c 01:18, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak Keep~~ Keep or Draftify: The subject has had several main roles in moderately notable films, thereby meeting WP:NACTOR, in my opinion. The source provided by Erik (which isn't strictly an interview-style article but merely contains quotes) provides significant coverage—although I do acknowledge that it is a local source. The subject does get a lot of hits in reliable sources, including thousands of hits at newspapers.com, but of the coverage I've sifted through so far, most of it seems quite routine. However, I do not see the point in deleting an article which may very well pass WP:GNG quite easily in the near future. An alternate solution would be to "draftify" it, which I think would be preferable to outright deletion. Dflaw4 (talk) 14:19, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in mind that drafts expire at some point. I've had some drafts I've been slow to address that have gotten deleted and have required me to request undeletion and start keeping it in my userspace instead. So basically, if no editor is that interested in doing anything with this actor in the draft space, it may as well be deleted. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:21, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would certainly add your source to the article, Erik, and anything else that provides non-trivial coverage, keeping my eye out for future sources. If it goes to draftspace and is then deleted because the new sources do not meet WP:GNG—well, at least we'll have given the article a fair shot. Personally, as I said above, I would be happy for the article to remain in mainspace, but draftifying would give it a final chance. Dflaw4 (talk) 14:33, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Update: Upgrading my vote based on more coverage (below). With some searching, WP:GNG might be satisfied. Dflaw4 (talk) 14:40, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I've just found some further coverage here. Dflaw4 (talk) 14:40, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify as the article is not a hopeless case as the actress does have some prominent roles and an editor has committed to improving the article, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:00, 4 May 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.