Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Erika Tham

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 Make It Pop. -- Scott Burley (talk) 01:12, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Erika Tham[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)

May not meet WP:NACTOR or WP:NBIO. Had been tagged with {{Notability|Bio}} since February 2016. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 20:09, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 20:10, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 20:10, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 20:10, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 20:10, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 20:10, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:26, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:27, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:27, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:28, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:28, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:28, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:28, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:29, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:30, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:30, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:30, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Off-Topic Comment - This deletion sorting has become truly preposterous. The actress is Canadian. Just because she lived in multiple countries does not mean that the deletion discussion has to be promoted to WP volunteers who handle articles about all those places. Also she has pretty much one occupation as a TV actress. The once-convenient deletion sorting service has gone mad! ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:03, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

maybe a little overzealous but the harm is...? Coolabahapple (talk) 09:30, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Coolabahapple, you may wanna comment at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting#Is_there_such_a_thing_as_too_much_deletion_sorting? --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 15:06, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

thanks Tyw7, will do (after some snoozles:)), although, how can there be too much of a good thing Coolabahapple (talk) 15:54, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Actresses are not automatically handed a free pass over WP:NACTOR just because they've had roles — every actor has always had roles, because having roles is the job description. The notability test for actors and actresses is not in the mere listing of roles, but in the quality and depth and range and volume of reliable source coverage in media that they received for having roles. That's not what these references are, however: of the six footnotes present here, four are unreliable sources that do not count as support for notability at all, and the two that are technically reliable sources both just namecheck her existence a single time in articles that are not about her. That is not how you get an actress over the Wikipedia inclusion bar, if the notability claim you're shooting for is "actress who has acted" rather than "actress who has won a notable acting award". Bearcat (talk) 16:29, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect (as WP:ATD) to Make It Pop since that is her only major role. WP:TOOSOON also applies since she is a minor. FoxyGrampa75 (talk) 22:43, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
FoxyGrampa75, she is also in Kim Possible live action film. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 23:14, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:NACTOR #1, with major cast roles in notable Canadian musical television series Make It Pop (as in, there are Wikipedia articles about them). change my vote to Delete as agree per Bearcat and Tyw7. MyanmarBBQ (talk) 07:52, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
MyanmarBBQ, well they need to be in multiple notable films, not just one.
"Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 12:18, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
not just one! Had a supporting role in the film Kim Possible. Let you know. MyanmarBBQ (talk) 12:48, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
MyanmarBBQ, that role is just a supporting role. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 12:57, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, supporting roles are not automatically the same thing as notability-making roles. Secondly, even if she'd had a starring role in Kim Possible, the notability test would still hinge not on just saying the words "Kim Possible", but on the depth and breadth and volume of reliable source coverage about her that she could be shown to have received for it. As I said above, the notability test for actors is not just the fact that roles are listed in the article — the notability test is the degree to which the roles did or didn't translate into real media (i.e. not blogs or gossip tabloids) doing journalism about her and her performances. Bearcat (talk) 15:49, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - So far, Make It Pop is her only role that has gotten some minor notice. She might fully qualify for a Wikipedia article if her role in Kim Possible earns significant media notice that is about her in particular. For now, it is too soon for an article but that may change in the not-too-distant future. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:07, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Satisfies NACTOR with her roles in Make it Pop and Kim Possible. That is not a "free pass". Bearcats additions to NACTOR are simply not part of that guideline. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:02, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Duffbeerforme, her role in Kim Possible is not a significant one. She only plays a minor character with not much screen times. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 12:32, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes Tyw7, reading some more it does look like that role is not significant. duffbeerforme (talk) 03:30, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't "added" anything to NACTOR at all. It is standard consensus that NACTOR is not automatically passed by every actor who can simply list roles — that would hand an automatic free pass over NACTOR to every single actor who exists, because every actor can always list roles. So if that were how it worked, then there could be no actual notability standard for actors at all anymore, because it would be impossible for any actor to ever actually fail NACTOR anymore if all they had to do was list roles. So the notability test is not just the ability to list roles, it is the ability to show that the actor received reliable source coverage about his or her having of roles. Not because I made shit up, but because consensus has established that as how NACTOR works. There is never any such thing on Wikipedia as a notability claim that guarantees a person a Wikipedia article just because it's been asserted — no matter what notability claim is being made, real reliable source coverage is always the measure of whether the notability criterion is actually passed or failed. Bearcat (talk) 19:48, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And now you are dropping part of NACTOR to create a strawman. duffbeerforme (talk) 03:33, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. I'm exactly correctly summarizing how NACTOR does work and always has worked, and am neither "dropping" any part of it nor strawmanning anything. Bearcat (talk) 16:41, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You wrote "NACTOR is not automatically passed by every actor who can simply list roles — that would hand an automatic free pass over NACTOR to every single actor who exists, because every actor can always list roles. So if that were how it worked, then there could be no actual notability standard for actors at all anymore, because it would be impossible for any actor to ever actually fail NACTOR anymore if all they had to do was list roles." Pure strawman. Let's look at what NACTOR actually says. "1.Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." (emphasis added). You've dropped the significant and the notable to create an claim no one is making just to argue against. Restore those two words and your house of cards comes tumbling down. They have to do more than just "list roles". Your claim of "exactly correctly" is a blatant lie. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:00, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There's no conflict between what I said and what you said: what you're missing is the fact that reliable sources have to independently establish the significance of the person's role by focusing on it and/or her. Every role in every film, every role in every television series, and on and so forth, would always get every actor over NACTOR #1 if all you had to do was invoke the words "significant role" — because if all you had to do to get an actor over the notability bar was say those words, then every actor could and would just say those words about every role. We regularly, in fact, see actors try to get into Wikipedia for publicity purposes by overselling the "significance" of their roles in things, which is precisely why just saying the words "significant role" is not a free exemption from actually having to source the article properly. So reliable sources have to establish the role's significance, by singling the role and her performance in it out for dedicated attention, before the role is "significant" enough to count toward NACTOR #1. That's why I'm not wrong. Bearcat (talk) 16:43, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Bearcat, Duffbeerforme, do you want to take the argument off this AFD? Perhaps to Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(people)? --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 16:59, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 01:39, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete we need realistic application of terms like "notable production" and "significant role". These terms mean indepth coverage of the role as such, not passing mention. Unfortunantely this standard has not been well applied, which is one reason Wikipedia is bloated with actor articles that are often little more than a filmography.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:50, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, this is a case of WP:TOOSOON. Her work isn't substantial enough to convince me she's notable. PK T(alk) 12:37, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Make It Pop since that is a significant role. No reason has been given a need to delete when this alternative has been presented and is entirely valid. duffbeerforme (talk) 03:30, 23 April 2019 (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.