Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alex Paxton-Beesley (2nd nomination)


 * 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. Michig (talk) 07:04, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Alex Paxton-Beesley
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

WP:BLP of an actress, for whom neither the substance of her notability claim nor the quality of reliable source coverage about her have appreciably improved since the first attempt last year. As always, every actress is not automatically entitled to an article just because she's had roles -- the notability test is not in the number of roles present in her filmography list, but in the number of quality footnotes that can be shown to get her over WP:GNG for the having of roles. But Alex Paxton-Beesley is still known for supporting and bit parts rather than any starring roles, and the references cited here are still a mix of non-notability-supporting primary sources (her alma mater's own self-published list of its own alumni, her cast bio on one of her shows' self-published website about itself, etc.) and glancing namechecks of her existence in news articles that aren't about her -- and the only source that is both independent of and substantively about her is from a community college student newspaper, not a GNG-supporting major market publication. This is still not good enough. Bearcat (talk) 05:27, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep. I did a news search, and there are quite a few sources mentioning her as a major character in a number of tv shows and theatre. E.g.      These links show that the article's subject's roles are not just minor roles, but sometimes big enough for her to be mentioned (sometimes prominently) in media discussions on the films/tv shows/theatre productions. Ross-c (talk) 08:04, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
 * She has to be the subject of a source before it helps to get her over WP:GNG, not just "mentioned in media discussions on the films/TV shows/theatre productions". Glancing namechecks of a person's existence in coverage of things that aren't her do not assist in establishing an actress's notability — coverage about her is what it takes. Bearcat (talk) 17:06, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
 * : You misunderstand. I'm not using those articles to support a claim of WP:GNG, but a claim of satisfying WP:ENT. Namely: Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions. The articles are just to show that her roles are significant, as they are mentioned in discussion of the show. This is to counter the original claim further up that she has had only minor roles. Ross-c (talk) 17:55, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Having one's name mentioned in coverage about the show is not proof in and of itself that the roles were "major" enough to exempt her from still having to pass GNG on coverage about her — it's possible to find a source of that type for virtually every single actor or actress who has a role at all, even minor ones. Even just to pass ENT's "notable because she's had roles" criterion, an actress still has to be the subject of a GNG-passing volume of coverage about her for having had roles, and the fact that her existence gets namechecked in coverage of the show is not enough. Bearcat (talk) 17:58, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I disagree. Having re-checked what the articles say, he articles show that her roles in these shows were major. These roles are enough to satisfy WP:ENT, and I believe that in this case provides sufficient notability to justify the page. As discussed in WP:GNGACTOR, Meeting one OR the other might be enough to allow consideration of notability. So, your claim that she also has to pass WP:GNG is wrong. I have considered your argument, and have checked a number of Wikipedia notability guidelines. But, my conclusion is that she has had suitable roles to satisfy WP:ENT and that is sufficient to justify the existence of the page. Ross-c (talk) 18:10, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Nope, I'm not incorrect. Every single actor or actress in existence can always provide cursory verification, through IMDb and routine casting announcement blurbs in the trade tabs and having their name parenthetically inserted after their character's name in reviews of the film or TV show and then never mentioned again, that they've had roles — but the measurement of notability for an actor or actress is not the fact that roles are listed, but the extent to which media have or haven't singled their roles out for dedicated attention. Reliable sources have to tell us that her role was major by focusing on her role in depth, not just mention her name, before the role is "major" enough to count as an ENT pass. There is never any such thing on Wikipedia as any notability claim whose mere assertion automatically exempts a person from still having to pass GNG — the notability test is always contingent on how well the article references what it says, because notability claims (especially in entertainment fields) can be and quite regularly are hype-inflated and/or reference bombed to look more notable than they really are and/or outright falsified. Bearcat (talk) 18:18, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
 * , Again, I disagree. The articles show that her role is major by mentioning her in a small number of actors actually mentioned in the article. Only the most noteworthy actors on the show will be mentioned like this, and there are many such articles. Not just one. You can't just make up your own guidelines for what articles need to include before we can conclude that her role was major, not minor. She clearly has a major role in Pure (TV series), and in a number of other TV shows . That you can invent all sorts of scenarios that don't apply to the subject of this article is not relevant. Is there any suggestion that there has been hype-inflation or falsification here? No. Please stick to the topic being discussed.Ross-c (talk) 20:07, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
 * The majorness of her role is demonstrated by coverage that focuses, in depth, on her qua her. It is not demonstrated by her name simply getting mentioned a single time in an article that is otherwise not even slightly about her, and it is not demonstrated by her having an alumni profile on the self-published website of her own alma mater. Bearcat (talk) 12:43, 20 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep per Ross-c. -- Gprscrippers (talk) 16:16, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:49, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:49, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:49, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:49, 20 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep She is the female lead in Pure, which has been renewed for a second season. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:33, 23 August 2018 (UTC)


 * 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.