Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Felicity Jurd


 * 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. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 18:02, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Felicity Jurd

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Seems to be written as a CV but there are also notability issues - of the sources listed that I am able to view there is either a passing mention of the subject or no mention at all, other sources are primary/database entries. I am unable to find anything resembling the significant coverage required to support an article. Яehevkor ✉  11:37, 8 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Agree that some of the sources are website/database entries. Many of the websites are company listed websites however the press listed in references are notable press listings and verfied with bonafide press clippings on the official website, , I believe the note was put on wikipedia in May before the source material was added in July which explains the questioning of the source material note which was added in May. Kjmelf (talk) 13:10, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 15:18, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Am inclined to agree with Jayron32 with regard to the point about notable work, however have seen many Wikipedia pages with less source material for performers who have very few credits to their names. in this case, the subject has had professional acting credits since 1984 as validated on IMdB. Being a notable performer is perhaps under consideration here, but the source material is valid and more extensive than most performers paegs. I guess the final choice will be with wikipedia editor on whether to keep or delete...could go either way 80.169.201.244 (talk) 10:13, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete the problem is that there are no references that are at once both independent and in-depth. That is, all of the in-depth references are written by the subject and/or official representatives there of (that is, personal website, press releases, etc.) OR they are extremely trivial in nature (that is, where her name may be mentioned, but where her life and work is not discussed explicitly in the sort of detail that WP:N requires).  Having a bunch of press clippings which name her various jobs, coupled with self-published autobiographical information, does not really meet WP:N standards.  What is needed is sources which simultaneously very in-depth AND which have no personal affiliation to the subject.  -- Jayron  32  16:31, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. It's a close case, but I think the independent sourcing is enough to demonstrate that she meets WP:ENT. We can't expect, and shouldn't demand, Kardashian-like coverage for every working performer out there; often the work, not the life, is what's significant for an encyclopedia. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:33, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Just to make a little point: the sourcing merely proves she has a job. Working as a performer does not make one automatically notable.  You can prove anyone has just about any job using the modern internet, it doesn't necessarily mean they are notable at that job.  That's why the "Significant coverage" clause is in WP:N.  Now, one may argue that the existing coverage is significant (I am arguing that it isn't, but argueing that it is would be well within the spirit of having a guideline-and-policy based discussion).  However, claiming that ones job title somehow exempts someone from the basic WP:N standards (which is what your argument reads like) probably isn't a very convincing argument for the closing admin to give weight to.  -- Jayron  32  22:40, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Delete due to lack of notability at this stage 80.169.201.244 (talk) 11:58, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:ENT (doesn't appear to meet any of the guidelines for entertainers). Lots of roles, but no indication that she's had any significant role in any notable production.  Her character in the two Aussie TV series with their own WP articles isn't mentioned in those articles, so one must assume she had only minor, occasional roles.  Note that IMDb is not considered a reliable source on Wikipedia, and arguments of the form "other people with less than this have WP articles" fail per WP:WAX.   Rich wales (talk · contribs) 05:40, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Note I've advised the page creator of this AFD as this had not yet been done. ŞůṜīΣĻ ¹98¹ Speak 11:54, 13 August 2011 (UTC) 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * (I relisted because of the late notification--I have no opinion on the article.) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  DGG ( talk ) 01:27, 15 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete Subject hasn't performed in significant enough roles to meet WP:ACTOR. The fact that an uncredited film role is in the lead sentence is a good example of this. ŞůṜīΣĻ ¹98¹ Speak 01:34, 15 August 2011 (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.