Talk:Moses Ingram

Contested deletion
This article should not be speedy deleted as having no substantive content, because it was a valid redirect which was incorrectly blanked. The subject of the redirect currently has insufficient reliable sources available to support an article but is likely to get further acting roles. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 08:46, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Basically there's no point editing this article at the moment
It was a bad idea to move this into main space from other than draft space and then immediately nominate it for deletion. Please make any edits to Draft:Moses Ingram. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 21:09, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Now someone has turned the redirect into an article again, leaving Draft:Moses Ingram stuck in draft space. This is not the right way to do things.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:50, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I've reverted this back to the redirect. Please update stuff at the draft. If there are new roles and new articles about Ingram, then put them in the draft.  AngusW🐶🐶F  ( bark  •  sniff ) 17:00, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but I respectfully think that that was unnecessary and do not think that this article should have become a redirect again. The facts have clearly changed since the article was deleted in February and the subject is undeniably notable. As mentioned in the article, Ingram was nominated for Emmy for her role in The Queen's Gambit. Also, The Tragedy of Macbeth (w/ Denzel Washington, dir. by Joel Coen) is no longer an upcoming film - it premiered at the New York Film Festival and is sitting at 100% on rotten tomatoes. She's been the subject of a profile in The Washington Post and now The New York Times, both cited in the article. I read through the prior deletion log and I'm not sure what we're waiting for here at this point, since she's now clearly notable per wikipedia standards. Post Emmy nom and Macbeth, if this article were created for the first time, I don't think there's any realistic chance that it would be deleted, but it seems to be caught in an unfortunate no-man's land now because of the prior deletion (for the record, I had no role in creation of original article) -- Baseballtom (talk) 22:20, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I found a NYT interview with her too. Edit away at Draft:Moses Ingram and resubmit it. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 22:41, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
 * The NYT article  is 1/2 Q&A, however the Emmy nomination   is helpful.  AngusW🐶🐶F  ( bark  •  sniff ) 23:04, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Clearly her basis for notability has changed since February, nobody denied that — but you still have to work within the Wikipedia process. The correct way to handle this situation was to improve and approve the existing draft, and bypassing the existing draft by just immediately restarting starting a half-assed rush job of an article that ignored most of what was already said about her in the existing draft is not on your menu of options. Bearcat (talk) 14:29, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
 * No need to be rude - please keep things civil. "Half assed rush job" is an unfair, careless mischaracterization - the article took everything from the draft article but added The WaPo and NYTimes articles, corrected several typos and a mislink to Macbeth, and mentioned the Emmy nom. I'm an experienced editor but haven't dealt extensively with deleted article drafts before - upon realizing my mistake, I edited the draft article before its posting (including two new citations) and will follow the preferred process heading forward. I'm glad the article has been created. Baseballtom (talk) 15:59, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
 * If you noticed the redirect was tagged with which means that it should be developed as a draft rather than replacing the redirect, so yes, that is the preferred process.  AngusW🐶🐶F  ( bark  •  sniff ) 20:48, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Ok sounds good - I hadn't noticed that tag but will definitely keep an eye out for it in the future. Thanks. Baseballtom (talk) 21:38, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
 * , The Washington Post article by Alexander is excellent for significant coverage, and it also has a video interview.  AngusW🐶🐶F  ( bark  •  sniff ) 17:36, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

redirect
This redirect should be deleted. Until we have a proper article on Moses Ingram the link should stay red. Compare Raegan Revord: an article is ready to go (in draft) but does not yet fully comply with Wikipedia's requirement of two separate big(ish) roles. Creating a redirect, to Young Sheldon say, only accomplishes the removal of the redness of the link, while providing zero utility to the reader. Don't remove red links just because they are red. I'll leave this in place since there seems to be an active discussion on fulfilling the notability criteria and bringing over the Draft article. CapnZapp (talk) 12:54, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
 * notifying participants of the February deletion discussion. CapnZapp (talk) 12:58, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Moses Ingram has a solid notability claim (Emmy nomination) now that she didn't have when I initiated the AFD back in February, and Draft:Moses Ingram does have stronger sources in it now — so it's a foregone conclusion that the draft needs to be accepted, and the redirect will disappear as soon as an AFC reviewer hits the button. In fact, I'll take that plunge myself in a few minutes — it does need a tiny bit of formatting cleanup first, so give me about 5 to 10 minutes — but this discussion will be a moot point as soon as I hit the approve button. Bearcat (talk) 14:12, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Draft is now approved, article is in place. Bearcat (talk) 14:25, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Pawnkingthree (talk) 18:19, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Good thing I held off RFD'ing this, then!
 * But please keep in mind for the future: do not attempt to get rid of red links by creating redirects. Yes, Wikipedia's notability guidelines are slower than most of pop culture news coverage, but links are supposed to stay red until the actor fulfills them. Thank you all CapnZapp (talk) 07:32, 26 September 2021 (UTC)