Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emily Carey


 * 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 delete. Can be userfied on request.  Sandstein  17:05, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Emily Carey

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Since PROD was removed, The child actress only has 2 'actual' credits, both of which were recurring roles. No other known nominations or awards, article looks more like resume, Article fails WP:NACTOR and is basically WP:TOOSOON..Why was it not deleted 3 years back is unbelievable .. Stemoc 07:54, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 16:07, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 16:07, 11 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Draftify/Userfy – Probably WP:TOOSOON. But there's a reasonable expectation that there may be enough here in 1–3 years time to justify an article – also, while it needs pruning, the current article is not unsalvageable assuming a few more significant roles turn up in the next year or two... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 06:11, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete altogether and Draft only if actually needed, there's simply nothing solid to keep and improve if that were to happen thus delete for now. SwisterTwister   talk  07:12, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep as has recurring roles in two television series one of which is the long running peak- time Casualty also has had a significant theatre role in Shrek the Musical at a top theatre Theatre Royal, Drury Lane, passses WP:NACTOR. The article already has acceptable references. Atlantic306 (talk) 19:51, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Here we go again. [sigh...] WP:NACTOR says significant roles – "recurring" roles are generally not "significant" enough. The refs associated with this article kind of prove this: almost none of them are mainline press sources (really only the Hastings & St. Leonards Observer is), and most of the current refs at the article are just passing mentions. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:53, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry to annoy you, but the recurring roles are in notable productions- Casualty is one of the most popular tv shows in the U.K. and the recurring role in Houdini and Doyle is listed as fourth in the credits. Also, why ignore stage roles? you are not giving theatre performances proper consideration, a production at Theatre Royal is notable and counts towards WP:NACTOR which in this case is passed. Atlantic306 (talk) 18:07, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
 * You still don't get it – it's not the roles that determine "notability", it's the coverage of the roles that determines notability. There are actors who have headlined TV shows that still don't merit Wikipedia articles because they, and the shows they headlined, received no significant coverage in independent sources. Quite aside from that, recurring roles are generally not "significant" in terms of WP:NACTOR either, despite what you're claiming. (And you're quite wrong about the crediting as well: only the three principal actors on Houdini and Doyle are "main" credited – Carey, among others, is guest credited, not "main" credited.) If you cannot grasp all of this, you need to step away from actor bios AfDs until you can. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 01:21, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
 * See you edited Houdini and Doyle article to change from fourth billing to sixth recurring which is now correct despite IMDb proving unreliable again.However, the theatre roles which are still being ignored and the Casualty show with the sources provided pass WP:NACTOR and verifiability.Atlantic306 (talk) 04:38, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
 * WP:GNG – "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention..." The "Casualty" refs are all passing/trivial mentions. (As for the Houdini and Doyle thing – I thought only the three leads were main credited until I saw Monday's episode and realized that five people got "main" billing. But the important point here is that Carey doesn't get "main" billing, but only "guest" billing, again proving that her role on H&D is indeed "recurring" and thus is likely not "significant" in WP:NACTOR terms.) P.S. I generally agree with John Pack Lambert's point that the bar for "notability" for minors should be high as well. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 05:00, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   17:38, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete recurring is not the same as significant, and we need to put the bar especially high for articles on minors, so I say delete unless we have a clear reason to keep.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:53, 24 May 2016 (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.