Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sheila Mercier

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. T. Canens (talk) 01:37, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sheila Mercier[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. Appeared as a main cast member in one long running soap opera, but otherwise only had a few roles in minor productions. One source in the article and I found only one other minor source in a WP:BEFORE search. Newshunter12 (talk) 22:54, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:21, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:21, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:21, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:21, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:22, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment How do you know that she only had a few roles in minor productions apart from her role in Emmerdale? This article actually says "had a long career on stage before her television career", unlike many articles about British actors which only mention their screen appearances. However, apart from naming the theatre manager whose company she worked in, it doesn't give much more information about her theatre roles, so I will attempt to find some - but really, please do a proper WP:BEFORE before nominating people whose active careers happened before the internet! RebeccaGreen (talk) 01:50, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I had searched and didn't find anything new or detailed about her stage career, so it didn't appear to be notable. People can just read the article before voting, not everything needs to be specified individually. I've gotten slammed before at AfD for getting too wordy with my nomination reasons. I'm all ears if you have better luck. I've seen your work before, so I know you excel at finding hard to locate sources. Newshunter12 (talk) 02:34, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per GNG – Thanks RebeccaGreen for adding sources and further details. — JFG ^talk 03:05, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@JFG The three sources added are passing mentions over a period of seven years, which is hardly sustained WP:SIGCOV. More like WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. Newshunter12 (talk) 03:10, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We've seen much worse, and this article may yet be expanded. In our online world, few people search for sources about a career that peaked in the paper age. Hopefully some editors will fill the gaps some day. — JFG ^talk 03:15, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and the argument of, well sources might one day appear from the mists of time so this must stay indefinitely, has no basis in policy. We are evaluating the article today and with sources that are available now. If you or others find sustained WP:SIGCOV later, then feel free to recreate the article. It has existed for over 12 years, so you can't fairly say this AfD is rushing anything. Newshunter12 (talk) 03:23, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK, let's take it from another angle. This person's participation in the long-running Whitehall farces and Emmerdale soap opera passes the WP:NACTOR threshold. That the article was stale for 12 years means nothing, because notability does not fade with time, even if popularity and name recognition do. As she just turned 100, we are likely to see some more coverage, plaudits and career retrospectives. Even without that, she's notable enough for Wikipedia. — JFG ^talk 04:09, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not so sure about that. The article states she worked in the Whitehall farces, but it doesn't say in what capacity. For all we know, she just mopped the floors after the show or played an occasional role, and the source (which was about someone else mind you) is behind a paywall, so I can't tell for myself if it says anymore. The fact that her role was not specified in more detail leads me to believe it is not as impressive as you seem to think. There was no WP:RS coverage of her 100th birthday either. Newshunter12 (talk) 04Hello :29, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Re the source so far included for the Whitehall Farces - it is an article about Sheila Mercier: Annie Sugden was the character she played in Emmerdale, so the title of the article is referencing her character. RebeccaGreen (talk) 09:34, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I got mixed up between two sources you added, but my point stands that I can't read either of them, and while a good find, this source was a mere vague brief mention of the Whitehall Farces decades after the fact. Newshunter12 (talk) 10:19, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have not finished adding sources, and there is more information about the Whitehall farces. I spent some time during the 4 hour flight home just now looking at the Wikipedia articles about those farces. It seems that the films based on them are notable, while most of the plays themselves have not merited articles, though they ran continuously for 3 or 4 years each. Is that due to reliance on IMDB as a source of information, I wonder, or a genuine reflection of sources? (I know that IMDB is not considered reliable, and is not even accepted as a source these days, but many WP articles about actors seem to have been created with IMDB as the main or sole source.) The farces were also shown on TV - the stage versions, I mean - and Brian Rix's article has some info about audience numbers - but again, they have not been considered individually notable. So I think there will be a bit of work before it's clear if Sheila Rix/ Mercer is notable. RebeccaGreen (talk) 04:58, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per GNG – Thanks to RebeccaGreen for adding new references. There is now no justification whatsoever for this article to be deleted. Rillington (talk)

@Rillington The sources added are a few passing mentions over seven years, one of which is an article about her brother where she is just mentioned as his sister, not sustained WP:SIGCOV. She fails both WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. She didn't have significant roles in multiple notable productions, she doesn't have a large fan base, and she hasn't made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment. She was a regular on one tv show and played a minor role in some other productions. Newshunter12 (talk) 17:30, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - easily meets WP:NACTOR schetm (talk) 13:57, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@schetm The sources added are a few passing mentions over seven years, one of which is an article about her brother where she is just mentioned as his sister, not sustained WP:SIGCOV. She fails both WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. She didn't have significant roles in multiple notable productions, she doesn't have a large fan base, and she hasn't made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment. She was a regular on one tv show and played a minor role in some other productions. Newshunter12 (talk) 17:30, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The entry in Some Joe You Don't Know is certainly SIGCOV, and the longevity in her role meets point three of NACTOR. RebeccaGreen says that the articles behind the paywall are SIGCOV, so I choose to assume good faith and believe her. schetm (talk) 19:55, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@schetm The source Some Joe You Don't Know had already been present in the article as the sole source, so I wasn't referring to that when talking about the added sources. It is indeed WP:SIGCOV, but as just one source it is not the requisite sustained WP:SIGCOV. It's just WP:ONEEVENT as of now - her time on that one show. No where did RebeccaGreen say the three sources she added were significant. In fact, if you checkback up above in her comment, she said she needed to check over further sources to see if Sheila Mercier was notable or not, with the implicit meaning that as of right now she is not. All three of the new keep voters piled on that the small stories she added are wonderful and push this woman way over WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR, but even RG didn't conclude that. Newshunter12 (talk) 21:44, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I reject the notion that a 20 year tenure as a character on a TV show is WP:ONEEVENT and, again, I view it as meeting point three of NACTOR. The fact that other sources exist, even if we can't read them, raises the possibility of sustained SIGCOV, and defaults me to keep. The headline "Don't look for Annie on the farm" certainly seems to indicate that the article would be about Mercier, so that would be the second RS schetm (talk) 17:03, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - passes WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR Germcrow (talk) 17:10, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Germcrow The sources added are a few passing mentions over seven years, one of which is an article about her brother where she is just mentioned as his sister, not sustained WP:SIGCOV. She fails both WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. She didn't have significant roles in multiple notable productions, she doesn't have a large fan base, and she hasn't made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment. She was a regular on one tv show and played a minor role in some other productions. Newshunter12 (talk) 17:30, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Newshunter12: You've made your point loud and clear. Please be mindful of [[WP:BLUDGEON]bludgeoning]] the discussion. — JFG ^talk 04:23, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I am working on tables showing her stage roles and her Whitehall farce roles (in which she appeared at the Whitehall Theatre, regional theatres, and on BBC TV). I see no reason why the long-running Whitehall farces should not be considered notable - there are enough reviews of them to support WP articles. So they are notable productions, and the subject had significant roles in them, so she does meet WP:NACTOR. I hope to add the tables, and quotes from reviews of productions she appeared in, to the article soon. RebeccaGreen (talk) 18:01, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep easily passes WP:NACTOR criteria 2 as has a significant fan base as one of the main characters in a tv series that had over 10 million peak time viewers for 20years, also many stage roles Atlantic306 (talk) 18:55, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have now added the tables, edited the article and added information and quotes. RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:26, 12 May 2019 (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.