Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bennye Gatteys


 * 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. The consensus has decided that the subject meets WP:BASIC (non-admin closure) AmericanAir88(talk) 15:18, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Bennye Gatteys

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article appears to be, at best, a vanity project for a minor, non-notable actor. This article fails miserably to meet even the minimal standards of WP:N as defined in The GNG and notability for actors or even WP:Notability (people}. To wit, the three criteria laid out above were not met in any way; there are no significant roles in notable films or television series; the actress/actor has no cult following, and has made neither unique nor common contributions to the medium of acting. Furthermore, the majority of the sources used in the article are dubious or deficient, mostly pulling from the non-verifiable IMDB, which is the equivalent of citing another Wikipedia article and does not rise to the standard laid out in WP:RS. I recommend that this article be deleted, a recommendation that I do not make lightly but feel forced to make as this article has been up here for over 1.5 to 2 years without being significantly improved and my own attempts at finding additional verification of notability or additional sources to strengthen this article have been politely rebuffed by reality. Michepman (talk) 22:31, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 08:46, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 08:46, 11 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete The one semi-reliable source does not propel this subject to notability. That said, we have lots of biographical articles on actors and actresses at present where the only source at all is IMDb. There is a huge field open to either nominate those articles for deletion or find some source other than IMDb. Wikipedia should not be an IMDB mirror, but we have far too many articles that seem to have been directly copied from that site.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:52, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:29, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Strongly concur, User:Johnpacklambert!! It’s glad to see that some of us can see sense on this topic without being colored by too much emotion. It is clear that this, like many articles. Was built siolely on the spine of an IMDB reference and then only hastily had sources submitted in a good faith but misaimed attempt to cover up the lack of WP:Notability with an over abundance of WP:RS. That’s not how it works though — a topic must have both notability and reliable, verifiable content — not one or the other... Michepman (talk)
 * Then you misunderstand our notability guidelines. They are there precisely to ensure that a reliable, verifiable, article can be written. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:57, 12 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep Has anyone reading this bothered to do a proper WP:BEFORE search (see B.2. and D in that guide)? In just two minutes on newspapers.com I've come up with several good sources on her, which I am going to add to the article now. --Krelnik (talk) 13:21, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * ETA: Have now updated article such that it includes 8 references from several decades, including several profiles entirely about the subject. Most of the articles include photos. I am updating my vote to SPEEDY KEEP because the nominator's argument about notability is clearly not correct. (Please, please, please do in-depth WP:BEFORE searches before nominating, and not just on Google. It saves lots of stress. If you don't have accounts on 'deep web' sites like newspapers.com, please see The Wikipedia Library which will provide you one). --Krelnik (talk) 15:16, 12 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep Thank you User:Krelnik for reaching out to me as well for doing the hard work of collating and improving this article! I really appreciate your help! In addition, when it comes to the deletion criteria, I took a look and I agree that it meets the standard for notability referenced above. Specifically, she has had "significant roles in notable films or television series", in particular Look Up And Live and Days Of Our Lives. I am not sure if that is enough though -- does the actress have to meet ALL three of the requirements (significant roles in notable TV/films; a cult following; and unique contributions to the film industry as a whole) or is it enough that she meets just one of them? Alicb (talk) 17:25, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Nominator comment It’s interesting that all these folks are suddenly popping out of the woodwork to save this article now after it was left in a largely unsourced rumor filled mess for over a year... I wonder what prompted this? Anyway, I commend the user above for adding additional reliable sources. However, these sources fail to directly address the critical issues I laid above — namely the fact that Mr/Mrs Gatteys, is not a notable actor under the applicable wikipedia guidelines referenced above. While she has had the occasional bit part in an old TV sitcom, and has apparently appeared as a contestant in a Game show, this does not rise to the general notability guideline nor therefore the notability guideline specifically crafted for television and film performers. Not every extra who appears on an ep of the Outer Limits is automatically notable, nor too is every game show contestant with trifling winnings. I have done an extensive search through the primary sources provided and they singularly fail to meet our guidelines, which would be apparent to anyone who reviewed them in any detail before submitting. Michepman (talk) 17:39, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Re: "popping out of the woodwork". What prompted this is the fact that the article has been nominated for deletion. You do realize that the AFD process is designed to send alerts out in various forms to various interested parties, so they can come comment on the nomination, right? Nothing more sinister than that.
 * As I said, I disagree with your assessment of notability. She clearly meets WP:GNG and she also meets WP:ENT via item 1. I frankly had never heard of this person before today, but I noticed the deletion notice on one of the article alerts that I monitor, and as I said I was able to very quickly determine that the article was worth saving, and add the necessary sources. All told it took just over an hour on newspaper.com to fix the article - exactly what WP:BEFORE recommends nominators do first. --Krelnik (talk) 19:40, 12 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep. I have reviewed the sources provided, as suggested by the nominator. and find them to demonstrate a pass of the general notability guideline. Folks are not "popping out of the woodwork" but reacting to the deletion nomination. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:54, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep - the sources added since the nomination shows that the subject meets the notability guidelines. Kudsos to Krelnik for adding the sources. -- Whpq (talk) 17:57, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep – Per a source review, the subject meets WP:BASIC. North America1000 11:35, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep: Agreed. Krelnik has been very helpful. We now seem to have consensus that the subject meets WP:BASIC. - Ret.Prof (talk) 13:41, 17 July 2019 (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.