Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jessica Falkholt

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. There is a split of opinion, but since her death, coverage in sources has expanded which means a sustainable article has become more likely since the AfD opened. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 23:19, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jessica Falkholt[edit]

Jessica Falkholt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:BLP1E. Actress does not meet WP:GNG, WP:NBIO or WP:NACTRESS. Was in a handful of episodes of a daily TV soap, and had almost zero coverage in independent sources prior to her involvement in a tragic accident. The sudden spike in notability is unlikely to be WP:SUSTAINED. Kb.au (talk) 15:14, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Kb.au (talk) 15:16, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Kb.au (talk) 15:16, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Kb.au (talk) 15:18, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Kb.au (talk) 15:18, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Kb.au (talk) 15:18, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I had initially tagged her article for notability, as it was mostly about, and created after, the accident. Then, I expanded it, hoping to find some degree of notability before the accident news spread. I found a few minor film roles and the future upcoming main one. I expect the latter to garner her some notice, as some post-death film releases do, but, until then, she's deletable. Plus, I've currently grown tired of the "is she dead or isn't she?" revisions. — Wyliepedia 15:41, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or at least semi-protect the page so that not anonymous IPs can edit for a while.DrKilleMoff (talk) 20:51, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Elaborate on why ?--BabbaQ (talk) 12:10, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, at this point. The circumstances surrounding the death of her family are quite horrible, but her career isn't of sufficient note to warrant a page - 16 episodes of a soap, and a role as title character in a yet-to-be-released film. If the film turns out to be successful, a page can always be created for her then. Chris Keating (talk) 00:50, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reluctant delete per above. Recreate if the upcoming film is successful. DigitalPanda (talk) 23:50, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reluctant delete I was going to argue "keep", but the sad truth is that she would not have been notable except for this awful incident. I live in Sydney and Jessica is a friend of a friend. However I can name six personal friends with longer acting resumes, none of whom would pass the notability test either. Manning (talk) 01:40, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS we dont compare notability betweem different actors. --BabbaQ (talk) 12:10, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • BabbaQ, Manning isn't arguing that it shouldn't exist because articles on the others don't exist. They're highlighting the fact the subject has a very limited acting resume and that those with greater acting notability would not pass the notability bar either. Kb.au (talk) 12:38, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
BabbaQ - We most certainly DO compare notability among various actors. Nicole Kidman is clearly notable. My personal best friend who has 27 minor acting credits and has appeared in nearly 100 separate television episodes (including 11 episodes of Home and Away) is not notable, as he was not a featured performer in any of those works. Manning (talk) 04:08, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question there seems to be a pretty clear consensus on the biography, but would it make sense to have an article on the car crash/incident itself, given the amount of coverage it received? Lankiveil (speak to me) 05:56, 12 January 2018 (UTC).[reply]
  • I can't see why it would, for the same reasons I nominated this for deletion. It's a just an horrific event that received a blast of news coverage because of the nature of it, but has no lasting notability in itself. Kb.au (talk) 06:30, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep combination of acting appearances and tragic death create notablility. 70,000 readers of this article are interested in her too ...... which also points to notability. MurielMary (talk) 10:32, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment WP:NACTOR requires "had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions" which she does not have. 16 episodes of a soap and a yet to be released movie does not meet the benchmark. The accident was tragic but she is not dead so WP:BLP1E applies. DigitalPanda (talk) 12:37, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I predict a nasty blast against us from The Daily Telegraph et al, if we delete it before her funeral/the attention's flickered out. Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 11:48, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
She wasn't notable before the accident, so... Also, has there been a rash of WP-bashing articles lately, and why should that matter? TDT are the ones that pronounced her dead after life-support was ended. — Wyliepedia 02:21, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, nomination is flawed. There are two events; being a TV actress and dying, and a misunderstanding of NotNews, which seems to be, "somebody appearing in the news means they must be kept off Wikipedia". Abductive (reasoning) 11:51, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks Abductive, my view of the subject in relation to WP:BLP1E is that she was only covered in reliable sources in the context of the crash (per condition 1: "If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event"). There seems to be no coverage of her in independent, reliable sources prior to the crash; the only result I could find in the news media was an incidental mention of her in a Daily Mail gossip article about Pia Miller from May 2016. I'm unsure how my understanding of WP:NOTNEWS is incorrect. If the individual is not notable and the event has no lasting notability, the article is essentially just a breaking news story. Kb.au (talk) 12:46, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, I still think deleting or redirecting to Hope Morrison should wait until after the funeral so we don't look crass and disrespectful. Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 23:09, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- does not meet WP:NACTOR and WP:BLP situation. Do we really need to inform the readers that the subject's surgery included "removal of part of her skull"? No lasting notability and disrespectful to the deceased. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:00, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lasting impact? Shes an actress not a scientist. --BabbaQ (talk) 12:10, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think it is very sad that anyone should think it appropriate to have made this nomination right now. Thincat (talk) 10:21, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As stated above, her article was created after the accident, so, for now, it's sadly her only notability. "Inappropriate" would be in the case of a suicide. Her article is stable to be a BLP, but not notable enough to exist...yet. — Wyliepedia 11:17, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really understand your comment but maybe you didn't understand mine. I think the nomination was not appropriate because it was likely to give rise to insensitive comments such as "until then, she's deletable". I had been reminded of a similar situation ten years ago where the AFD discussion was eventually blanked because of dreadfully crass comments (through thoughtlessness rather than malice). That article still exists and seems to be causing no difficulty. I won't link to it. Thincat (talk) 11:57, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Out of my vote, "she's deletable" is what you get twisted about? Perhaps you should check her page history (circa 12/29) and see who fluffed her article to give some semblance of notability, outside of the events of the past three weeks. — Wyliepedia 16:31, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Trust I've seen short and one source articles worth deleting. This one is fine to keep as it is sourced effectively and does tell much about her. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 17:54, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete has only appeared in one notable production, and not even clear if that was a significant role, so falls short of the notability guidelines for actresses.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:45, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Inclined to Keep High profile soap in Australia and Ireland (and others) XyzSpaniel Talk Page 13:53, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There is enough verifiable material to justify retention of the article. Capitalistroadster (talk) 01:02, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Feel free to add material showing she has "had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions". DigitalPanda (talk) 01:07, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • She has been the subject of considerable interest in the Australian media. I have received two breaking news alerts about her death and the BBC has covered her death. There is more than sufficient material to indicate this article is worth keeping. Capitalistroadster (talk) 05:05, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep People keep saying her acting career was short (it was and she would not be notable on that alone), but combine the acting career with the crash and that's two events. She clearly passes GNG and has some pretty major sources covering her death, just think in 500 years if historians were to build a biographical dictionary using major newspapers obits, Jessica would clearly get into it based on the level of coverage. GuzzyG (talk) 01:06, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Could be improved a great deal with time and this person has made headlines. Cexycy (talk) 02:47, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not a significant role so fails WP:NACTOR. The crash she was involved in, terrible as it is, isn't particularily notable either -- Whats new?(talk) 03:00, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The soap opera role was substantial, and 16 episodes, while not huge, is not brief either. She also has a major role in a yet to be released film. While normally we'd wait till that film is released, her accident and death have caused an unusual amount of advance mention of it in reliable sources, so it makes sense to keep this rather than to have to recreate it after that second important role is publicly viewable. Yngvadottir (talk) 04:12, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Significant role in Australia's longest running soap. Has a part in an upcoming film that is going ahead despite her death. The fact the the article was not created prior to her accident does not have any bearing on notability.--Dmol (talk) 05:15, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - WP:NACTOR requires "significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions". One role, even significant, does not establish notability and 16 episodes of a soap is not significant. DigitalPanda (talk) 09:22, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No mention of her in the media before the crash. Even if the crash was tragic it goes under NotNews.DrKilleMoff (talk) 05:28, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Doesn't meet the Wikipedia criteria for notability as one TV series and movie role doesn't qualify as "multiple" in my opinion. Unfortunately sixteen episodes in a very long running series is not quite enough to strengthen the case for Falkholt's notability. The circumstances of her death are tragic which is why I would wait a little while before deleting the article. smrgeog (talk) 05:33, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Except for the upcoming movie and TV show, which are attested by secondary sources. This entire nomination is pointless, because her article will be reinstated in short order. No scalp for the nominator. Abductive (reasoning) 05:39, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment looking at it coldly even the upcoming film won't be enough to meet the notability criteria unless she wins a major acting award and/or the film is a major success. If that happens, I would support the idea of keeping the article. smrgeog (talk) 05:54, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, a few weeks in a soap opera, a film which isn't notable and a minor role in an upcoming TV show doesn't establish notability -- Whats new?(talk) 05:57, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds. Abductive (reasoning) 07:43, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Role in significant and leading Soap opera in her country. That her article was created after her death is irrelevant to notability. WP:GNG is met so the nominator is mistaking. The cheer number of input in this AfD alone is quite telling.BabbaQ (talk) 08:36, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - WP:NACTOR requires "significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions". 16 episodes does not meet the requirement and GNG is not met. DigitalPanda (talk) 09:22, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Famous in Australia. (Gabinho>:) 09:28, 17 January 2018 (UTC))[reply]
  • Keep - Information is information, history and time fervently just sporadically topples on over itself, very much like the cars did each other in this incident, a combined three scenario's, opiate epidemic, fame, and coincidence, along with a history lesson, just keep it organized, but she was famous, and there is a lesson in that poor girls whole family receiving death for Christmas.... -§Ferventtboundz

Ferventtboundz (talk) 10:52, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Meets WP:BASIC and WP:GNG. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 12:27, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep meets WP:GNG. Rusted AutoParts 13:13, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per arguments by User:Lugnuts. -Mardus /talk 14:02, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Really goes to show where the "notability" lies when almost half of the entire article is devoted to a few moments in the final three weeks of her life: car crash, surgery and death. But, then again, these are the subjects enough editors feel are important in the moment. A few people here believe it was "disrespectful" to nominate this for deletion but do you really believe Jessica (or anyone) would want a piece primarily devoted to the pitiful state she was left in as a result of the crash to remember her by? Sometimes, if you want to build an encyclopedia, you can't let stories that pull at your heartstrings influence you.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 14:45, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - she's known for three things: a recurring role in a soap opera, a major role in an upcoming film, and her tragic death. While each of these considered separately may not meet Wikipedia's notability standard. when viewed as a whole I believe they make her notable enough for inclusion. -Zanhe (talk) 17:18, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment just a reminder to some that is is not a memorial site. Actors have be notable on their own merits. Ajf773 (talk) 18:31, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Meets WP:BASIC and WP:GNG. There are enough Google search entries the WP:V is also met. While death isn't a reason for creating an article - the way death occurred and the multiple number who perished is an additional note to consider. Brudder Andrusha (talk) 18:36, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Appeared in a popular soap opera in episodes that totaled 400 mins, or about 5 feature films. Plus upcoming completed film role, that by some accounts is/was a major break in her career. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.78.35.10 (talk) 18:51, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
— 172.78.35.10 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
— My ISP frequently and automatically changes my IP address. Please do not attempt to devalue my vote for this reason, or insinuate that I have made other edits within this topic, when I have not. Thank you and in good faith.
  • Soft Keep - just about passes notability in my view, but there has not been sufficient arguments made for deletion beyond the fact that her work was predominantly confined to one series. Stormy clouds (talk) 22:20, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I think keep is the best solution here. Of course Wikipedia is not a memorial site. I understand that. But the movies to be released and her appearance in the soap that is very popular is an indication for notability. It may be weak. Perhaps a link out of the entries for the movies to come (people coming later will ask what did she do before e.g.) and the soap would justify the entry to be kept. Royalrec (talk) 22:40, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Just being in a crash and starring only in a TV soap is not enough. If this doesn't pass we might even see lots of random pages dedicated to random people who got coverage since they passed away in a crash --Sau226 (talk) 07:36, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry but this is a bit weird, please explain exactly when BBC and other news services have devoted named frontpage news for weeks on a random car crash? Please do not make up stuff that is clearly not true, there is no chance of random people in car crashes getting on here. GuzzyG (talk) 12:47, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I felt maybe perhaps a revision, in which I don't think I presented my arguments tone correctly, maybe someone needs to write a sort of sub genre tab, for life instances, or make a page for Jessica falkholt who has an imdb page and sounds pretty damn famous enough to deserve to have a page to be known for the human she was, and that is the point of the amazing wiki library, and regardless of what that family wants, there is an even greater gain to society, within this beautifully devious life lesson, luring mistresses they can be...edit- I didn't know that something has to be famous to be recorded in "the free encyclopedia"(which I basically learned a novice in pharmacology, grateful) as long as it knowledgeable, and or interesting, and look at this beautiful page a collective of humans took to edit, seems like there was a lot to say about her, well if your gonna destroy that work, you look it in the face and tell it. I guess it all boils down to how promising her career was, but I'm from eastern U.S.A. and news of her death was front page first thing I opened my homepage to. btw someone should seriously pioneer that wiki sub genre tab.-fervy Ferventtboundz (talk) 10:48, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Um, what? — Wyliepedia 17:42, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I also have an IMDB page. However I assure you I am NOT notable. Manning (talk) 04:25, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We don't compare careers or reasons for IMBD. Per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.BabbaQ (talk) 08:50, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete More information about her death than there is about her life. Jsderwin (talk) 20:04, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is not a reason for deletion.BabbaQ (talk) 08:50, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Her role on Home and Away was NOT significant or notable. Home and Away cranks out 150 minutes of television a week, 40 weeks a year, and pretty much every actor in Sydney has appeared in it for a few weeks as a minor character at some stage in their career. For reference, a local actor I know (Paul Barry) appeared in eleven episodes of the show, as well as many other locally produced soaps, TV dramas and numerous TV movies. His resume is substantially longer than hers, but he is also not notable as none of those roles were "featured" or "significant". Manning (talk) 04:23, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • What other actors does or does not are irrelevant. What another actor has done concerning career has no baring what so ever on Falkholts career. Notability is established here per references and career. And like it or not her accident and death has recieved both national and international coverage so is also notable.BabbaQ (talk) 08:52, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does Paul get round the clock significant coverage in such major sources as the BBC? No, so OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is the sole argument. GuzzyG (talk) 08:59, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • It doesn't matter how many news articles Falkholt gets as Wikipedia is not news. Would she have gotten a single line in the media if it weren't for the crash? I doubt it. DrKilleMoff (talk) 14:54, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • How someones career gets noticed is irrelevant. I could probably have created an article about her a year ago. The reality is that not every notable person gets an articke created about them before death for whatever reason. But the fact alone that her article was created after death and in connection with a serious accident is irrelevant to notability. And you are wrong about coverage, world media has covered her death, first of a clear indication of notability. Secondly, the world coverage is notable.BabbaQ (talk) 15:39, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because of WP:SIGCOV internationally sparked by her death. It can be revisited in a year or two, when notability will be clearer. Or work based on her may have emerged. But I also wish to mention WP:RAPID. Before rushing WP:BREAKNG NEWS to Afd, take a deep breath, put it in a file, and return to the topic later. People who hear about an EVENT and turn to Wikipedia for information only to find a deletion template see us at our worst - and yet this is a moment at which new editors often decide to join the project. Rushing to delete articles in the weeks after an event happens is not only a waste of editorial time and energy, deletion of EVENTS turns readers off and squanders good will.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:42, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • You could had but you didn't, just because she wasn't a notable person in life. 16 episodes of over 6000 in a show that has lasted for 30 years and a movie which doesn't even haver been released yet does not make someone notable. Her other works exists of a short film and one extra in one episode of another Tv series. And you misread what I wrote. I wrote, "If it weren't for the crash she wouldn't have gotten a single line in the media".DrKilleMoff (talk) 17:52, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - with upcoming film and tv projects, this could be argued as WP:TOOSOON, but all signs indicate the productions will be released. This will most likely be closed as no consensus and can be revisited after the programs air and gain subsequent media coverage. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 22:02, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Meets WP:GNG. The Drover's Wife (talk) 23:05, 19 January 2018 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jessica_Falkholt&oldid=1137948809"