Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Margot Knight

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 keep. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:13, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Margot Knight[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)

A non notable soap actor. WP:BEFORE shows no evidence of secondary coverage. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 21:01, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 21:01, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 21:01, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 21:01, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 21:01, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable soap opera actress.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:08, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It seems that the subject is more of a stage actress than a TV actress (for e.g., https://www.heraldsun.com.au/leader/south-east/hit-show-wicked-widows-at-frankston-arts-centre/news-story/a91f2087d30792c18db4ddcc091fbc31). I will withhold my vote while I get some articles clipped from newspapers.com. Dflaw4 (talk) 15:11, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:22, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I see a few passing mentions via my Newspapers.com membership, but nothing, unfortunately, that indicates persistent or in-depth coverage of the kind required to fulfill the requirements of WP:GNG. serial ^# 23:40, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Here are some sources from Australian newspapers: here, here and here. Dflaw4 (talk) 12:47, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep: I think there's enough here to justify the article—enough roles to pass WP:NACTOR and a weak case can be made for WP:GNG, too. Dflaw4 (talk) 12:11, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Can we have comment on the linked sources please?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:16, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - to confirm, I still don’t believe the subject is notable based on the additional clippings. All three newspaper articles come from the same source and are passing mentions of the subject’s local theatre work. Even if this would indicate notability, it doesn’t help verify the current article so a case for deletion could be made under WP:TNT. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 23:30, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cardiffbear88, The Age is one of Australia's main newspapers; it's not a small or local publication. And the coverage is more than just passing mentions, especially the first article (the latter two are less in-depth). Dflaw4 (talk) 04:40, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Significant coverage in reliable sources (The Age). Given that she was most active in the 1980s it's reasonable to assume that even more coverage exists offline. pburka (talk) 19:13, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I have to agree with Pburka that the coverage is significant and likely to be a mere subset of what is available offline. Deus et lex (talk) 03:37, 1 June 2020 (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.