Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Freya Tingley

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 no consensus. I think at this point it's clear that no consensus to delete will be reached. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 23:11, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Freya Tingley[edit]

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

No evidence of notability. One reference is on the web site of a company she has worked for, another merely mentions her name once in a credit, and the other is currently a dead link, but it was a page on wn.com, which is notorious for spamming itself into unrelated search engine results by various means, including giving irrelevant quotes from Wikipedia articles, so that merely knowing that they once had a page mentioning Freya Tingley, without knowing anything about what it said, is no indication at all of notability. (PROD was contested with the comment "I don't see why she is not notable", but no explanation of why she is.) JamesBWatson (talk) 10:00, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. czar · · 18:46, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. czar · · 18:46, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I admit this is more on a borderline case. But I disagree with the nomination rationale "No evidence of notability". There is obviously some notability: staring a TV show doesn't make you notable, I don't know what actors can do to achieve notability. The question is if it is enough. Surely having a "very small" role would not do, but she got one of recurring role. To address sourcing, I have added 2 interviews. I stand with the edit summary: to me she is notable "enough". -- Taku (talk) 12:11, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

One of the links you added was to a page at www.680news.com, which is an advertising site. (There is no doubt that the content is advertising: the site's terms and conditions explicitly refer to "the person or entity contracting for broadcast time" as "the Advertiser" or "the Agency".) The other link you added was to a page at The Futon Critic. That too looks to me like essentially an advertising site, and its "about us" page is mostly about what sort of services they can provide to advertisers, though unlike in the case of 680news I can't find anything that explicitly says that advertising is all that they do. The Wikipedia article on The Futon Critic was deleted at AfD as lacking evidence of notability. All things considered, I don't think that these two links adds any significant evidence of notability for Freya Tingley. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:00, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete does not meet any criteria of WP:ENT. LibStar (talk) 10:21, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sure does. -- Taku (talk) 02:57, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 10:32, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep! Freya Tingley is an up and coming actress, currently in the Netflix Series Hemlock Grove, as well as just guest starring on Once Upon a Time as Wendy Darling. People are just now discovering her talent, this list should not be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guardianofthemoon (talk • contribs) 21:44, 6 May 2013 (UTC) — Guardianofthemoon (talk • contribs) has made no other edits except this post. [reply]

In Wikipedia deletion discussions, "up and coming" usually means "he/she has not yet achieved notability, but I think that he/she will do so". "People are just now discovering her talent" is much along the same lines: we don't keep an article because we think its subject may one day satisfy Wikipedia's notability guidelines: we need evidence that it does so now. (See WP:CRYSTAL.) JamesBWatson (talk) 12:02, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The case for deletion seems logical enough but needlessly severe. She has a major role in a major series that was just released a month ago. I would guess she is already committed to a second season, and if so she's sure to eventually have the requisite number of legitimate links. I would imagine this article has been getting quite a lot of page views since the series came out. I wonder if this proposal has more to do with a zest for pruning than a broader view of the point of Wikipedia. But to be fair I have no idea what sorts of pitfalls Wiki insiders have to guard against. I write as a user. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.210.47.220 (talk) 04:34, 13 May 2013 (UTC) — 138.210.47.220 (talk • contribs) has made no other edits apart from edits to this AfD discussion. [reply]

"She's sure to eventually have the requisite number of legitimate links" is even worse than "up and coming", above. We don't keep an article because we speculate that its subject will probably come to satisfy Wikipedia's notability guidelines in the future: we need evidence that she already does so now. See WP:CRYSTAL. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:39, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DeleteNon-notable. Possible sock/meat puppetry above. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 04:58, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm curious how I gave the impression of being the other defender of the page. My speculations were tendentious, yes, but also sincere. Why delete a serviceable page that, I'm guessing, gets a significant number of views. The newness of the actress is what makes this page needful in the first place. How does deleting this page help Wikipedia or its users? Maybe not the place to ask but I'm genuinely curious. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.210.47.220 (talk) 16:13, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:BARE as notable enough. I am wary, however, of the advert style of the article; it seems to be written by a PR flak or fan. Bearian (talk) 17:10, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This might be a dead horse by now but I thought of something that might explain the disagreement. It may be that the people concerned with policing the quality of Wiki articles are accessing the candidates for deletion from a list of new articles, or of articles marked as dubious? In that case I can see why you would find this thin, PR-ish page worthy of deletion.

However this approach is misleading. Users are overwhelmingly going to be coming to this actresses' page from the Hemlock Grove page, where she is listed as the 6th of 6 named cast members, all of whom seem to have wiki pages of their own. People curious about the show may start browsing the actor pages, and by deleting this page you will simply be marring the Hemlock Grove page, making Wikipedia less complete, and making the user experience less satisfying. In effect it's cutting the nose to spite the face, if not with the unworthy motive that phrase implies. Another way to put it is that if you look at the actresses page as a freestanding whole it might be delete-worthy, but the more natural way of seeing it at this time is as a part of the whole Hemlock Grove cluster. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.210.47.220 (talk) 20:41, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That is a reasonable point of view, but unfortunately it is not in line with current Wikipedia policy. We need evidence that she is notable in her own right, and she does not inherit notability from a programme she appears in. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:47, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dea db eef 23:35, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I tidied the article up, removing promotional claims and trying to see what her career really amounts to. It's clear that most of her roles have been very minor or in small films by unknown directors - the article mentioned "award winning" director Renee Marie but IMDb doesn't list any awards she's won[1]. Tingley's part in Hemlock Grove probably fits the criterion of a significant role in a notable work, but you need multiple roles to meet WP:NACTOR and I'm not sure if any of her other roles would make it (her parts in Cloudstreet and Once Upon A Time, both major TV shows, were too small). --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:07, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

After doing some research on Wiki policies I think the solution is that because this is a currently popular show the "multiple notable roles" guideline (which is not a law) should be overlooked. WP:BURO; WP:IAR. The point of anticipating that she will eventually have more notable roles is not to justify inclusion but to criticize deletion at this time as needlessly bureaucratic. Once this show has faded from public interest and if she doesn't then have any other notable roles prune away, I guess. Although I have to say I honestly don't understand the motive for pruning. One of the charms of Wikipedia is its comprehensiveness. Personally I think it would be a better site if 20 years from now I can find out biographical info about an obscure cast member of a long forgotten but once popular TV show. Is the fear that articles like this will be planted by agents or other interested parties and make Wikipedia a forum for 'product placements' rather than reliable information? If there is a preexisting discussion of these matters I would appreciate a link to it.138.210.47.220 (talk) 18:30, 14 May 2013 (UTC) — 138.210.47.220 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Weak delete fails WP:NACTOR for the moment. I would say only one significant role, though that may change in the near future.Doctorhawkes (talk) 05:18, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Failure to meet WP:NACTOR exactly does not guarantee removal. This seems to me an opportunity to err on the side of inclusion, especially considering multiple interviews of the actress from Hemlock Grove. --Pusillanimous (talk•contribs) 15:04, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - she was listed way down the Hemlock Grove cast by way of not giving spoilers: she was season 1's main adversary, the vargulf or however you spell it, which is a notable role. If she doesn't land any more notable stuff within a year, fair enough, but she's only 19 & likely to become the next Summer Glau, I'd lay money on that. Sciamachy (talk) 12:37, 17 May 2013 (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.