Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cynthia Cleese

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 redirect to John Cleese. MBisanz ^talk 21:28, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cynthia Cleese[edit]

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

Her notable lineage aside, she is not nor has she ever been a notable actor, per either WP:NACTOR or WP:GNG. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:52, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:53, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~And yes, there was this Daily Mail story, but tabloid items like this are not generally considered as contributing to WP:N~~. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:15, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It seems easy to find detailed coverage such as "People are looking to hate me". Andrew D. (talk) 18:17, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes but that is not the same person, Camilla is Cynthia's younger half-sister. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:20, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - They seem easy to confuse – you search for one and get the other – Shawn did it himself with the Mail story. This seems a good reason to have a page – to help keep things clear. And, when one is careful, it still doesn't seem difficult to find coverage of Cynthia too – "Going Her Way". Andrew D. (talk) 18:39, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - Oh my goodness you're right! Sorry. But a non-notable easily confusable ex-bit-part actress is hardly a good reason to have a permastub article, surely. A redirect, maybe? I was going to propose that or just do it myself, but then who to redirect to, which parent's article? It's why I settled on deletion as my suggestion, Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:53, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:01, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment are we now suggesting that because you two have confused these individuals, it's a " good reason to have a page – to help keep things clear"? Honestly? Perhaps we need a new editing policy, WP:WHENCONFUSEDKEEPARTICLE, or similar. Extremely dubious. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:39, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I certainly agree. That said, that People magazine piece is a really good one. But that's really all I see, in the otherwise meager Gresults. After a few bit parts in her dad's films, she seems to have made good on her pledge in the short People piece to pursue a different path, and hasn't since done anything -- yet -- that would meet our notability requirements, it seems to me. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:50, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- We have lots of pages to help keep things clear; it's called disambiguation. Andrew D. (talk) 20:24, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Not sure relevance that has to your claim that we should not delete this article because to keep it is "to help keep things clear". Is that a new policy? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:13, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - We use disambiguation pages for title matches. We already have Cleese, but if deleted we wouldn't keep the redirect there. So disambiguation's not really the point. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:09, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      - The purpose of disambiguation pages is "Ensuring that a reader who searches for a topic using a particular term can get to the information on that topic quickly and easily, whichever of the possible topics it might be." As the names of John Cleese's daughters are easy to confuse and Google treats them as much the same, we have a good reason to help our readers get to the right page. Making this page into a red link would be disruptive. Andrew D. (talk) 18:45, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        I see, ignore the article itself, just WP:WHENCONFUSEDKEEPARTICLE. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:41, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While the above People (magazine) interview is significant coverage in an independent reliable source, I can't find any other such sources, so I think the subject fails to meet WP:BASIC, which requires multiple such sources, and certainly fails to meet WP:NACTOR. People wouldn't have interviewed her if it wasn't for her famous parents, and she seems to have maintained a low profile in the 19 years since. Qwfp (talk) 11:25, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep or Merge to John Cleese and link from her mom's article. Doesn't quite meet NACTOR, but a redlink is just an invitation to recreate the article. That said, the "[they] wouldn't have interviewed her if it wasn't for her famous parents" argument fails (it's third party, so NOTINHERITED doesn't apply to the motivations of non-WP sources). Montanabw^(talk) 21:01, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd have no objection to that merge proposal. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:21, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Deserves an article in her own right.--Ipigott (talk) 10:05, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm upgrading my !vote to "weak keep," above. But cool with either a keep or a merge. Montanabw ^(talk) 18:07, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:46, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:09, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - doesn't meet WP:NACTOR criteria, having only had minor roles in a couple of her father's movies, and having just one significant article in an independent reliable source means she doesn't meet WP:BASIC either. Most arguments for keeping seem to revolve around her famous parents, but notability is not inherited. Neiltonks (talk) 12:38, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (a weak delete) Coverage includes in-depth here but mostly everything else is about her famous father or her naughty sister.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:04, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Redirect as there's by all means nothing at all substantial for her own independent notability. Thr Keep votes are not focusing with this exact matter thus they are not actually convincing. SwisterTwister talk 17:15, 21 August 2016 (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.