Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jill Murphy (actress)

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 delete. ✗plicit 03:58, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jill Murphy (actress)[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)

Non-notable actor. Subject fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:NACTOR. Article has been tagged for notability concerns for some time, and recently PRODed. While the reasons for the PROD were not sustained (and I agree with the PROD removal), I think an AfD discussion/decision is warranted. From the extensive WP:BEFORE exercises undertaken by MIDI (and indeed my own searches), it would seem that we barely have enough reliable/verifiable sources to support the limited text we have. And none to support notability. (All of the available sources seem to be the same trivial passing mentions we might expect for any "jobbing" actor (cast lists, production stills, etc). And these all just about confirm that the subject has had a number of (with every respect) "bit parts" in soaps, mini-series, etc. Nothing to indicate the "significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, [etc]" expected by NACTOR.) There is no coverage of the subject in news (even acting industry news) articles. Subject has not been subject of any biographical coverage, no evidence of awards or anything else we might expect to differentiate this subject from any other similar "jobbing" actor... Guliolopez (talk) 16:56, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Guliolopez (talk) 17:03, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Guliolopez (talk) 17:04, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:40, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Info - Note to closer for soft deletion: While this discussion appears to have no quorum, it is NOT eligible for soft deletion because it has been previously PROD'd (via summary).

--Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 02:07, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

’’’Delete’’’ per nom. Fails notability. Ceoil (talk) 20:53, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG Not notable enough to justify a Wikipedia article and there is not significant coverage.RamotHacker (talk) 21:22, 4 September 2021 (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.