Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Natalie Faye

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. MBisanz ^talk 02:56, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Natalie Faye[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. The subject of the article does not have significant roles in multiple films/series. In addition, there is hardly any independent media coverage (most references are primary/self published sources and even those are quite few). The article is also written in a promotional tone (although I tried to fix that). Lemongirl942 (talk) 07:54, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have tried to add several additional independent sources from the media, including a recent feature article by an award-winning website in the UK. Somehow, User:Lemongirl942 deletes several of these independent media references and then cites 'lack of independent media references' as a reason to flag the article. I apologize if the article had a promotional tone when I edited it. A lot of the phrasing simply came from the independent sources I was quoting, and I was not aware that the tone would read in such a way at all. If the phrasing can be improved upon, I welcome it. However, I disagree that the article should be deleted. Natalie Faye is an actress with a strong body of work that I, and many others, have been following since the early 00s when she appeared in many Mediacorp television series and theatre productions. I remember reading about her back in those days in publications like 8 Days, Cleo, Her World, New Man, The Straits Times, The New Paper and such, which cited her work in significant plays and tv series such as First Touch, Phua Chu Kang, Heartlanders, Achar, True Files, The Legendary Swordsman, Millenium Bug, We Do, Colours, and The White Road. As those were physical publications, I've had difficulties finding corresponding reviews and articles online but I have managed to find some independent media articles and have referenced them. Honestly, I am baffled that this article is being cited for having not enough independent references when the Wikipedia articles of other notable actors who were known in Singapore during the same era as Natalie Faye, such as Steph Song, Cheryl Chin, Janice Koh, and Celest Chong have just as many independent references, if not fewer. Also, it would help if the legitimate independent media references I add to the article would stop being removed. Kelly A. Cheng 09:54, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Kelly A. Cheng: If they appeared in Singaporean (physical) newspapers/magazines (prior to 2009) you can search them online in the archive here. I did search for "Natalie Faye" and it returned 0 results while a search for "Diana Natalie" returns 4 results. I am unable to find evidence that she satisfies WP:GNG. The sources I removed were independent sources but self published sources WP:SPS. The other sources you used for citations were all linked to the article subject. The one link to Asiaone was good, but it was only one. -- Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:39, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Lemongirl942: You probably only found 4 because the site you provided only has an archive for a few newspapers, and not the vast majority of Singaporean magazines and media outlets. I have tried to find archives of those but can't. Anyway, this is my first Wikipedia article contribution and I decided to write this after reading a recent article about Faye. I felt that with her contributions to the theatre, film, and television industry since the early 00s and her appearances in so many notable Singaporean TV shows and plays of that time period, she deserved a Wikipedia page. But it seems that everyone is having trouble finding media articles that meet Wikipedia's requirements, so I understand the article being flagged for having insufficient sources. I have no objections to that - particularly since I currently don't have time to go dig up those old magazine and newspaper articles I mentioned but may do so at a later time. However, I am not sure this article should actually be flagged for deletion when it has more sources than dozens of other Wikipedia articles about Singaporean actors. When I made the article, I (mistakenly) felt that there were enough independent media references based on the pages of many other Singaporean actors - some of which only have two or three independent sources linked, and some, not at all. So I encourage Wikipedia editors to also examine these other articles as they are misleading in terms of how many sources are needed. I acknowledge that perhaps I did not provide enough for Natalie Faye, now that I know more about how many should be referenced. But other Wikipedia articles for Singaporean actors like Hayley Woo only have one reference, and yet that article is not being flagged for deletion. Even worse, Eileen Yeow has no sources/citations/references whatsoever, and the article hasn't been flagged for deletion either. Other Singaporean actor articles that have not been flagged for deletion despite insufficient sources include: Race Wong, Cheryl Chin, Mariam Baharum, Jeszlene Zhou, Michelle Goh, Melvinder Kanth, S. Shamsuddin, Elvin Ng, Baskar Subramanian, Anwar Hadi, Nathan Hartono (faulty links in references, and some are blogs). I can't remember all the Singaporean actor articles I looked at before I created my article, but these are some - there are countless others. In fact, I would go so far as to say that most articles about Singaporean actors on Wikipedia suffer from insufficient citations or proof of notability. A few are flagged in terms of needing more citations, but none are being flagged for deletion, while mine was flagged for deletion only two days after I made it, without time being given to improve it (while most of the above articles I cited have been around for years without being deleted despite insufficient citations). I just wanted to point out the inconsistency of Wikipedia editing standards when it comes to articles about Singaporean entertainers. Either all those articles should also be deleted, or my article should simply be flagged for needing additional citations, but not for deletion. Considering how new it is compared to the other articles with insufficient citations, it should be given more time to be improved.

@Kelly A. Cheng: I understand this is your first article and I appreciate your help. The Singapore newspaper archive contains most of the mainstream newspaper which are considered as reliable sources WP:RS. If the person wasn't featured in the mainstream newspapers, it is hard to conclude that the person is notable (see WP:NACTOR). Thank you for bringing the other articles to our notice. The way to go about is to first search if independent sources are available about the articles subject. If not available, then it is OK to flag it for deletion. I'll continue the conversation on your talk page. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:13, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 04:08, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 04:08, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as currently questionable for all applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 06:03, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This article is about her. It's difficult to find Singaporean articles about her, though, and there hasn't been anything that I can see in the US. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:51, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails to meet WP:NACTOR. NewYorkActuary (talk) 23:21, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 26 March 2016 (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.