Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Niamh Algar

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. Daniel (talk) 00:14, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Niamh Algar[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)

Fails WP:NACTOR and WP:BASIC. A lot of "appearances" on a WP:BEFORE and some coverage related to BAFTA. I don't think it is enough for a stand alone article. Thank you, Kolma8 (talk) 20:05, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Kolma8 (talk) 20:05, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Kolma8 (talk) 20:05, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Kolma8 (talk) 20:05, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The creator of the article is WP:SPA. [[1]] Kolma8 (talk)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:29, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Absolutely doesn't fail WP:NACTOR and passes WP:GNG. The subject has appeared in numerous prominent (and a few leading) roles in both television series and films. A quick search brought up a number of reliable, independent sources. Agree that the WP:SPA is suspect, however. ExRat (talk) 03:28, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:NACTOR. KidAd talk 21:44, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - squarely meets NACTOR. There are enough reliable sources already in the article, specifically about this person, to comfortably pass the "Significant coverage" requirement of WP:GNG. Creation by an SPA is always a concern, but unless there's evidence the creator is evading a ban, it's not cause by itself for deletion (if the subject is appropriate but the content questionable, the correct thing to do is to remove or fix the questionable content). As it is now, the article seems uncontentious and not promotional, a fairly standard actor bio. -- Finlay McWalter··–·Talk 22:16, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: meets WP:GNG by virtue of several RS pieces covering her. Bondegezou (talk) 11:29, 5 February 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.