Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cheska Garcia

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. Consensus herein is for article retention. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:52, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cheska Garcia[edit]

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

Delete: as non-notable actress. Quis separabit? 10:39, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

·Keep:- sources available to attest notability.--Jondel (talk) 05:24, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~@Jondel's vote is meaningless. He has been twice accused of stalking this nominator's AFDs and~~ "Sources available to attest notability" does not satisfactorily comply with Wikietiquette (as per WP:AFD, to wit: "Remember that while AfD may look like a voting process, it does not operate like one. Justification and evidence for a response carries far more weight than the response itself.") Quis separabit? 00:58, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:26, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:26, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:26, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Really, what sources -- these sources ([1], [2], [3], [4], [5], et al) do not, in my opinion, although maybe I am too tough a grader, establish notability as they are mostly or wholly comprised of trivia and gossip, with some info about her husband, Doug Kraner. Quis separabit? 12:28, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You do realize that "trivial coverage" does not mean "articles full of trivia", right? There is nothing in the notability guidelines that classify "trivia and gossip" as insignificant coverage. And of course it's mostly trivia and gossip. She's an actress. When you Google Tom Cruise, what do you get? The important thing is depth of coverage. She isn't merely mentioned in passing. In several of those articles she is the main subject. She has also appeared in multiple films and TV shows since the 90s. And that is what WP:NACTOR requires. Her marriage only dates to 2008, her association with Kramer is merely typical media fawning over a "fairytale marriage". She was already notable long before that.- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 10:51, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets WP:NACTOR, significant following/fan base as evident in news articles.--RioHondo (talk) 02:48, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 07:24, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per Rio Hondo. Very obvious significant coverage in secondary sources. Roles in multiple notable movies and TV shows. Again, like all the rest blanket nominated here, here's a short list of the first page results in Google: WorldVision, ABS-CBN Push, PEP.ph, GMA Network, ABS-CBN News, CNN Philippines, The Philippine Star, Hola! Philippines. How did these escape the nominator? -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 08:30, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
They didn't -- having re-researched Google -- I see that almost all the media coverage about Ms. Garcia is based on her marriage, children and last pregnancy, which led to her retirement from acting at a rather young age -- none of which can possibly bring to bear upon her notability as an actress -- which is the ostensible reason the article was created. (I suspect it was created for other reasons but.......)~~Thus there is no notability if her extremely truncated career consists of routine television appearances.~~ Per her own article: In 1992, she began her television career, along with her brother Patrick, when both appeared as cast members for Ang TV, until 1996." Nine other television credits are included. IMDb has 15 acting credits (and some non-acting appearances as herself on various programmes). She retired "to become a full-time mom". This does not meet the threshold for notability as an actress by any stretch of the imagination. While being a loving mother who gave up her career for her family is noble, it is not notable for Wikipedia purposes. Surprising that @Obsidian Soul missed all that. Quis separabit? 00:58, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"In 1992, she began her television career, along with her brother Patrick, when both appeared as cast members for Ang TV, until 1996." Nine other television credits are included."

WP:NACTOR:

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.

LOL. -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 01:06, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Obsidian Soul. Adequate indicia of notability and an adequate amount of work - 20 years from and notability in her homeland to meet NACTOR. even if she's in a temporary hiatus now, having kids shouldn't instantly mean you are now a nobody. Celebrity news is always like that, more interested in personal life than critical reviews of roles. But it's still third party coverage and indicia of notability. We have no WP:CRYSTAL ball, but plenty of people return to their careers, too. Montanabw ^(talk) 06:13, 28 September 2015 (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.