Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anabel Barnston

Anabel Barnston

 * 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  Merge into Coming of Age (2008 TV series). JodyBtalk 21:27, 31 October 2008 (UTC)


 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

The page is a biography of a young actress who has had roles in a handful of television episodes according to her IMDB profile. At this point there do not seem to be any reliable sources that discuss the actress or her career and so I do not think a verifiable article can be written. Guest9999 (talk) 18:37, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails WP:ENTERTAINER, I'd say. No really significant roles so far. FWIW, here's the only article I was able to find on her on Gnews. RayAYang (talk) 20:26, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions.   -- RayAYang (talk) 20:26, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions.   -- RayAYang (talk) 20:27, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * very weak keep as I have just cleaned up, sourced, wikified, added external links to the article. Very weak.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 20:34, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * One of the sources you've added is from an open to edit (wiki like) site that cannot be considered reliable and should not be used to verify information in a Wikipedia article. One is her agents website, one seems to be a database of everyone who's appeared in any entertainment product which contains only a two line listing and no biographical information. The only other source is from a local newspaper which are also generally not considered to be reliable sources (with a reputation for fact checking and accuracy). This is not the kind of sourcing that should be acceptable for any Wikipedia article, let alone in a biography of a living person. Guest9999 (talk) 00:42, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * You make a good point about those weak self-submitted websites included by Schmidt -- I agree with you and they should be excised. However, you can blame me for adding her press agent's link and the newspaper article. These were only included to meet WP:V about her roles and as attribution about her current work from the statement by her agent. The newspaper, although small, does meet the standard for WP:RS (being owned by Newsquest and Gannett, it is required to meet their standards of fact-checking) and as stated in WP:RS, it can be viewed as "authoritative in relation to the subject at hand" (italics is WP's). —  Cactus Writer |   needles  09:14, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks you for pointing out my mistake but I'm still not convinced by coverage in a local newspaper. When they are used as sources in articles, to me it's mainly an indication that no other sources exist. They tend to cover anything and everything related to their locality regardless of importance (I know someone who had a short article written about him after asking a question on Question Time). For example the publication used in this article currently has articles about a theatre performance in the local pub and an exhibition in the local art gallery. I don't think it would be possible to write Wikipedia articles about either the acting group in the first or the artists in the second using only the local newspaper source. Guest9999 (talk) 10:34, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I think we're dancing around two different issues here. The first is that you have based your Afd nomination on WP:V, not importance of the sublect. That means you are saying that it cannot be verified that this actress actually performed the parts for which she is being credited in the article. This press release by the BBC is enough to satisfy that alone. The newspaper article provides additional independent verification. (I understand what you're saying about local newspapers, but not all locals are equal -- some are simply shopper rags and others are like this one -- owned by reputable publishers and contractually held to the same strict standards because the parent co. is responsible for libel.) On the basis of verifiability, this Afd could be closed. But I think we should address the issue of notability raised by RayAYang. I agree that the examples you use of local artists and local theater wouldn't qualify for WP, but we're not discussing a local actress. This person stars on a regular national television series. So the question here is: Does an actress who stars in three television shows (one a 5-part drama, another canceled after only one season) meet the criteria for WP:ENTERTAINER of "significant roles in multiple television productions"? I think she squeaks by. —  Cactus Writer |   needles  13:53, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * By the way, I've scrubbed the reference list and included her refs at the British Film Institute archive. — Cactus Writer |   needles  16:36, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * You're right, given the current discussion my nomination statement was incomplete. However, despite all the good work that has been done to the article it is still essentially a list of four or five minor acting parts with no real biographical information. Even the slight embellishments on the list don't really stand up to much, it opens with "is best known for..." but there's really no reliably sourced evidence about what she's best known for which can be arrived at without editor synthesis. The article with the information it currently contains would be best suited to a list of roles (such as an IMDB listing) not an encyclopaedia article. WP:BIO gives a basic criteria "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." I think it is questionable that she meets this criteria as as you say not everyone with a local newspaper article about them is considered notable and that's probably the only independent source. In cases where the subject of an article fails the basic criteria but meets an additional criteria (such as WP:ENTERTAINER) the guideline suggests merging the content to where it can be presented in a broader context, do you think this could be done in this instance? Guest9999 (talk) 18:43, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Good idea. That is probably the best solution here. Merge her information into Coming of Age (2008 TV series) and redirect this page. One other cast member has even less of a page that requires the same treatment; and one cast member has a redirect there already. If Barnston ever has a definite break-out role, then she can get her own article. — Cactus Writer |   needles  20:15, 27 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep (see comment below) - Just passes WP:ENTERTAINER for significant roles in multiple TV shows. Actress stars in a prime-time TV comedy series on a major network (although the reviews suggest it won't last beyond this one season). Leading roles in two previous tv series including this one nominated for a BAFTA children's award. Is currently receiving some coverage such as this. — Cactus Writer |   needles  21:35, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge and Redirect - I'm striking my previous weak keep, in favor of a merging this information into Coming of Age (2008 TV series) per the discussion above. — Cactus Writer |   needles  20:15, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * keep There was some stupid invalid information, but it's not hard to correct it (which I've just done). After that, it can be kept as a stub. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.27.201.63 (talk) 01:25, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge and Redirect - Common sense: she was 12 when she did Young Visiters, only 17 now. If she has a career, she'll get her own page, but not yet - not when there's no content to include - IMDB is for entries like this. The disputed Newspaper story has no extra info of any interest, and could easily be dropped as a reference since the BBC press release duplicates the essential detail. 82.11.194.209 (talk) 01:46, 28 October 2008 (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.