Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Melissa Jean Woodside

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. —Tom Morris (talk) 20:21, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Melissa Jean Woodside[edit]

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

Non-notable actor. No roles listed on IMDb. No reliable sources from which to draw verifiable content. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 17:07, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails relevant sections of WP:N. Eddie.willers (talk) 19:00, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Young Canadian actress. Please, check.--Uuuwiki (talk) 11:13, 22 June 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, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 00:39, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:ENTERTAINER: "(no) significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions". Tassedethe (talk) 01:15, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarification. I've added her more roles in Movies and TV. Please, check the article.--Uuuwiki (talk) 07:09, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of attained notability. The references in the article are primary and the nearest to detailed coverage I could find is a blog interview which isn't enough. AllyD (talk) 05:56, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please, check this: [1]--Uuuwiki (talk) 07:09, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment So she posted a youtube video. Not really a sign of notability since any can do it and millions have. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 10:59, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment No! I don't think anyone can do an interview with actor like David Whitney. Please, show me where millions have? And for your kind information she didn't posted that video. Even the video was uploaded on 20 April 2013. Do you have any proof to support your comment? Warm Regards, --Bigmjfan (talk) 16:12, 28 June 2013 (UTC) — Bigmjfan (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    - Comment For one thing, the interviewer on the video introduces herself as "Amanda Care", not Melissa Jean Woodside. Second, I don't know who David Whitney is. The article you linked to was for an art curator dead eight years now. Without knowing who Whitney is, I'd be hard pressed to say how hard it is to arrange an interview with him, but given the shoddy quality of the video, I wouldn't say it's too hard. And given that the interviewer has only identified herself as Amanda Care, I have no way of verifying that this is or is not Melissa Jean Woodsite. All in all, I would not say that this video bolsters the case for notability for Woodside. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:26, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability at all. David Whitney seems pretty non-notable too :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:20, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Actors and actresses are not automatically entitled to articles on Wikipedia just because you can demonstrate the mere fact that they exist — which is all that the cited references (a meetup.com listing and a "castingcall.com" profile) demonstrate. Rather, you need to use reliable sources — coverage in real media, sourced directly to the copyright holder and not to a YouTube video, by which we can verify the article's content and notability. That standard has not, however, been properly met here. The article might become keepable in the future if real sources can be provided about her, but nothing cited here at the present time counts as a valid source, and the article is thus not entitled to stick around in its current form. Bearcat (talk) 22:52, 2 July 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.