Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gwen Shepherd


 * 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 (NAC) RMHED (talk) 21:35, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Gwen Shepherd

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Article is about an actress with no reliable sources to establish notability. Her body of work as shown in IMDB does not show any significant role. The bio as written focuses on a single role in a single episode of Seinfeld where she plays an unnamed cashier. A search for articles about her turn up no reliable sources. Whpq (talk) 12:32, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

*Delete - Apart from being unable to find any significant coverage, the subject also fails to meet WP:ANYBIO and the general notability guideline. Jeffrey Mall (talk • contribs) - 15:12, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Withdrawing from discussion. Jeffrey Mall (talk • contribs) - 14:36, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget  23:39, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Delete - There's no evidence that she meets the general notability guidelines at WP:N, and her roles are neither "significant" nor "prolific" so as to meet WP:ENT (the relevant specific standard for actors). - DustFormsWords (talk) 23:50, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per Paularblaster's improvements below. - DustFormsWords (talk) 00:09, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. Being a canny cashier in one episode of Seinfeld hardly cuts it, but I've added some sourced information on her theatrical work in the 1980s that I think gets her over the bar for WP:ENT (particularly her role in the original production of Blues in the Night). --Paularblaster (talk) 02:07, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - Looking for guidance. The added roles don't make her notably prolific (compared to, say, Martin Sheen's literally hundreds of credited roles), but the Blues in the Night and Showboat roles are certainly notable from a theatre perspective.  WP:ENT demands "significant roles in multiple [...] stage performances".  Is two enough to satisfy "multiple"?  On a literal reading it does but I'm not sure if it's been interpreted that way in the past.  I also note that there's still no source attesting to her notability being independent from her roles. - DustFormsWords (talk) 02:19, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't see a requirement to be notably prolific, only to be notable. The quotation in what is currently footnote 4 also indicates that she was not inactive as an understudy in Legends, which means she performed in at least three notable stage productions. I'm not sure what you mean by her notability not being "independent from her roles". The requirement for performers is their roles, not a more generalized celebrity, although clearly if she was "a celebrity" we wouldn't be having an AfD. --Paularblaster (talk) 02:58, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:ENT (the specific sub-policy for notability of actors) talks at criterion 3 about notability on the grounds of being prolific. She doesn't remotely meet that but that's fine because she's got a much stronger claim on WP:ENT criterion 1.  When I'm talking about "independent notability", what I'm saying is that appearing in a notable production may merit inclusion in Wikipedia but it doesn't of itself merit a separate article in Wikipedia.  (See WP:BLP1E and WP:NOTINHERITED for more discussion.)  Typically the level required for a stand-alone article will be that a reader can be familiar with some aspect of the individual without necessarily having a detailed knowledge of the works they have contributed to, usually demonstrated through an independent reliable source that focuses on the individual themselves in detail.  (An article about "Gwen Shepherd, up and coming actress" or "Shepherd continues promising career" or some production being interesting on the grounds that Shepherd is attached would nail it handily, although certainly that's not the only means of satisfying it.) - DustFormsWords (talk) 03:38, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Ha! The number of times I must have read right over "prolific" in WP:ENT 3. But as you say, it's no. 1 I'd consider her meeting. Would what is currently footnote 3 meet your other concern? --Paularblaster (talk) 03:54, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * She also appears to work under the names Gwendolyn J. Shepherd and Gwendolyn Shepherd, which adds a Chicago production of Porgy and Bess and a Broadway production of Midsummer Night's Dream (the more you look the more prolific she gets; these names also give bit parts in Murder She Wrote and a couple of other series). Not adding these to the article yet as I want to double-check it really is the same person. --Paularblaster (talk) 04:15, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Reference 3 (NY Times on Showboat) doesn't meet my concerns in that it's discussing her as a highlight of the show, not independently. However other editors may (and frequently do) disagree with me!  If the Porgy and Bess and Midsummer Night Dream roles are significant roles, that'd definitely take it past WP:ENT criterion 1 though, so if you find something that satisfactorily establishes they're her I'd definitely change to Keep. - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:26, 11 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete so far all I see are a couple trivial guest appearances, but nothing really notable. JBsupreme (talk) 08:17, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 01:21, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Nominator is changing to WEAK KEEP - based on the items dug up by Paularblaster (thanks!), showing multiple reviewed stage roles, I think it just passes the notability bar. I would withdraw the nomination, but it appears that not all editors are convinced by the additional sourcing. -- Whpq (talk) 20:02, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * comment. I've just done a near-total rewrite. The article should be judged as it now stands (particularly on the basis of her not stellar but certainly substantial theatrical roles, rather than TV walk-on parts). --Paularblaster (talk) 23:11, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
 * Still stand by my (altered) vote of Keep above on the basis of Paularblaster's improvements. - DustFormsWords (talk) 01:26, 17 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep per improvements and additions to sourcing demonstrating sufficient coverage. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:11, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep seems to have enough coverage in reliable sources.--Staberinde (talk) 20:08, 17 November 2009 (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.