Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Josephine Gillan

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 delete. SoWhy 12:19, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Josephine Gillan[edit]

Josephine Gillan (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:BIO. Minor roles in one television show and one short film. Lack of significant coverage in reliable secondary sources, outside of IMDb and one primary source from the short film. Comatmebro (talk) 03:35, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 08:38, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 08:38, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 08:38, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2 days! 2 days! after creation before this is nominated for deletion!! So why should it not be deleted?:

  • 1. The page is already connected from 8 other sites. That is 8 other pages if you click on the link you'll get, "This page does not exist. Creating Josephine Gillan" - and yes the references were already there before I turned them into links.
  • 2. 100s of actors have had small parts in Game of Thrones, but despite this Josephine Gillan still makes the list on Wikipedia for each of the seasons she is in. Why is that? A not insignificant fanbase probobly has something to do with it.
  • 3. Game of Thrones is not just any TV series. Love it or loath it it is culturally significant and game changing. One feature is how disposable characters are. That the character of Marei wil survive through to series 8 is noteworthy in itself.
  • 4. Josephine Gillan has a significant and important personal story which is sourced in national newspapers and other periodicals. I personally do not want to record it. Maybe someone else does.
  • That enough? I hope so. If not, really I'm done with this!S.tollyfield (talk) 17:43, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In regards to both 2 & 3, those both specifically makes the character notable, not the actress. WikiVirusC (talk) 16:35, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@WikiVirusC: Please be careful about saying a GOT character is notable when she probably isn't. You don't want to fan the ice and fire. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:44, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I should have been more clear. I meant the character is notable within the scope of the Game of Thrones series, not notable in the scope of everything. Notable enough to be mentioned in a list of characters for the show, not notable enough for an individual article. WikiVirusC(talk) 14:38, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This very new article of a fairly new actress has now been expanded. (Edit: Nikkimaria just removed all my work, claiming "non-RS") GoT's inclusive ensemble awards since her casting passes actor notability. — Wyliepedia 11:39, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think ensemble awards grant every cast member from the show instant notability. Some of those awards like the Screen Actor Guild(which GoT has been nominated multiple times never winning) list out the cast members that are being considered in the ensemble [1]. Gold Derby TV Awards, which GoT has won multiple times, I'm not sure if it is inclusive, even if it is, that can't automatically give every minor and supporting role in the series notability. She may WikiVirusC (talk) 16:35, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
She may...what? Yes, I tweaked and expanded her article with her background, leading into her GoT work, and then voted here, all within early morning hours for me and citing The Daily Mail. 'Tis true: if everyone in any ensemble is lumped in any such award, then individual articles might illogically get created. That wasn't the reason hers was, but was the reason for my vote along with the expansion. Now, it reads as a stub for a new mainstream actress in a pseudo-recurring TV role and some minor upcoming film roles. Should that be grounds for deletion, I don't think it should be salted in case her career blossoms further. — Wyliepedia 22:24, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
My comment was only towards the statement about Game Of Thrones winning ensemble awards isn't grants for every supporting/minor role to have(or keep) an article, for the reason you stated in your reply. I'm not saying she shouldn't have an article I was just commenting on the statement made. In Regards to "She may...", I was writing a new sentence(She may be notable apart from this reasoning but...). Then I deleted it, but only partially it seems. I was looking for other references to add to article but only could find the same Daily Mail & The Sun stuff or things quoting them in the short time I looked. WikiVirusC (talk) 22:57, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, she tweeted and retweeted the TDM interview link, which tells me there's a grain of legitimacy about her background being made public, as I worded it in her article to not seem sensational. However, TDM's reputation for that will never satisfy any future legit interviews. The Sun echoed some of the same material with a few additions, but it also got wiped from her article. Her Cinderella story here will have to wait. — Wyliepedia 23:25, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete does not pass the notability threshold. That requires multiple significant roles in notable productions. One significant role just does not cut it, and it is debaltable weather her Game of Thrones role is significant.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:48, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SophisticatedSwampert let's talk about that 06:34, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Note: The Daily Mail and its associated website are no longer regarded as reliable sources for Wikipedia. Emeraude (talk) 08:23, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Doesn't appear quite notable since most online stories basically repeat the same content, but it seems odd that there's no merge target or anywhere to include a small amount of info on her. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:28, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
GoT is her first mainstream role. The show is so vast, it's even impossible to mention how it "saved her life" even at List of Game of Thrones characters#Supporting cast. Her other film roles since are so recent and/or unnotable that there can never be a redirect-merge. That's why I suggested not salting. — Wyliepedia 13:24, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Fails WP:GNG, single story about her has been reported by (most significantly) the Mail and the Independent. This does not amount to significant coverage by any standards, there are countless examples of members of the public getting their name in the papers for a single story. Fails WP:NACTOR, which requires multiple, significant roles in notable productions. Gillan has had a single role as a tertiary character in a notable production. I have also seen and can find zero sources to suggest any kind of notable fan following, beyond the vague hunch in the keep comment above. Would not support salting until re-creation becomes an issue, as it is possible she will become notable in the future. El Pharao (talk) 19:36, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep . This article obviously meets WP:GNG. Their are many reliable sources about her and this page can be expanded, also she's on Game of Thrones. - AffeL (talk) 11:46, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please list the sources to support your case. I'm happy to change to a keep if there is enough coverage but I couldn't find anything outside of the single 'GoT saved my life' story which doesn't suffice to pass the notability threshold on its own. El Pharao (talk) 16:05, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@El Pharao: Look at AffeL's edot history a bit and you'll see that his questionable understanding of BLP and NOR fully explain his above !vote. They don't justify or validate it, mind you. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:17, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERSTUFF exists isn't a valid reason for an article to stay. In regards to Ratchford, I think they are using her modeling(or fan base?) as her notability, not her single acting role. Looking at the page I don't see how that page never was even up for deletion discussion especially with Big Tits City being used as a reference. But I think it would survive a discussion with the WP:RSs out there for her. WikiVirusC(talk) 05:32, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, I've seen every episode of GOT, the first four seasons multiple times each, and I have no recollection of her character -- the claim that she is a "fan favourite" is questionable; more likely, she was the only GOT-associated person who could be booked for ECC that one year, ECC itself not coming across as much more than a small, recently-established local convention. The claim further up this page that Gillan's appearing in the cast lists for various season on Wikipedia makes her notable enough for her own Wikipedia article is circular reasoning, and ironically is discredited by the otherwise poor argument WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST, as one could say the same for plenty of other actors who don't have articles. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:44, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I have now added 3 more conventions she has been at and there have been more - the assumptions about the Edinburgh Comic Con are just thatLawTech6 20:25, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
@S.tollyfield: Please limit yourself to one !vote and refrain from changing your signature in the middle of a discussion.[2] It gives the impression that you are trying to create a false consensus by pretending to be multiple editors. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:44, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And if you have any reliable sources that say ECC is not a small local convention established within the last five years ... well, you should use them to update our article. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:50, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Only "source" is Daily Mail - not a reliable source as I noted arlier. In the absence of any other sources, which have been requested and not given, this must be delete. Emeraude (talk) 10:02, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Further in answer to the question of whether or not Marei is a fan favourite here is the link to the FAN generated wiki that tells you why: http://gameofthrones.wikia.com/wiki/Marei This link was on the page earlier but deleted as it is created by FANs for FANs. I have also added a new link to "LGBT fans deserve better" but how long will this link last? The reality is the proof of notability is there and if you are deleting this article it is because the rules you have created for Wikipedi are preventing the proof from being provided and not because Josephine Gillan is not notable objectivelyLawTech6 03:12, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
@S.tollyfield: Please limit yourself to one !vote and refrain from changing your signature in the middle of a discussion.[3] It gives the impression that you are trying to create a false consensus by pretending to be multiple editors. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:44, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - These links, aside from not being WP:RS, are about her character in the show, not her. They are created because Game of Thrones is an immensely popular series with a huge fan following. The current link says absolutely nothing about Gillan what-so-ever other than that she is the actor playing this character. This article is about Gillan, not Marei, so they aren't really relevant to this page. Also, please do not do a bold vote more than once. El Pharao (talk) 07:24, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@El Pharao: Did you notice that the comment to which you were responding was the third duplicate !vote from the article's creator? He changed his sig so as not to reference his username in the middle of doing so. Have you seen such a problem before? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:50, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The point being contested however is whether or not she is a "fan favourite" which is impossible to consider in isolation from the character and fan response to itLawTech6 07:29, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment Closing admin, please note that 3 of the keep !votes were made by the same user (User:S.tollyfield and his "alias" LawTech6), none of which are even based on Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Bennv3771 (talk) 05:06, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I met Josephine Gillan at a Comic Con. She was friendly and had some good stories to tell at the GOT panel. She has not had an easy time of it - and that is putting in mildly. I bought a signed photo as did many others. When I got home I looked her up on Wikipedia to find that not only did she not have a page on Wikipedia she was one of the very few actors on GOT pages not to have one. I thought she aught to have a page. It seemed like a No Brainer. How wrong can you be? It appears that Marei has a better chance of surviving to the end of GOT than Josephine Gillan has of surviving the cull on Wikipedia. Lesson learned. I will not waste my time in the same way again - but I've said that before. Goodbye!LawTech6 07:16, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:52, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The Wikia article on her does what is necessary. DGG ( talk ) 16:40, 12 July 2017 (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/Josephine_Gillan&oldid=1176902203"