Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hayley Carmichael


 * 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. Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 09:14, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Hayley Carmichael

 * – ( View AfD View log )

There's plenty of mentions in RS but nothing specifically featuring the subject, therefore the subject fails WP:GNG, and by extension WP:ENT (if the subject was a notable entertainer someone independent would have written about them). Judging by the age of the page, there is no way it would be accepted today because there is only one source. Ch1p the chop (talk) 14:06, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone  14:15, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone  14:15, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone  14:15, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone  14:15, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep. She had "significant roles" in several notable things, fairly recently Tale of Tales (2015 film), as well as the 2019 BBC adaptation of Les Miserables, as well as others, so she is notable per WP:NACTOR.  These are verified by 600 items in the Google news search! You do not *also* need to be notable under GNG. The fact that the article sucks does not mean that it should be deleted, just that it need narrative text to be added describing her career. -- Ssilvers (talk) 08:58, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment OK I see what you mean and yes it would deinitely be better to keep the page, and I agree that they meet WP:NACTOR by way of multiple significant roles. Taking a load of listings, and routine coverage and spinning it into coherent narrative text without embellishment or WP:SYNTHESIS seems like a challenge though, and the listicles look truly terrible.Ch1p the chop (talk) 12:02, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep: It seems the subject has had numerous stage roles, too. These two sources indicate main parts in at least a couple of productions: this and this. I certainly think the article needs work, but there are sources out there which can easily be added. Dflaw4 (talk) 12:11, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   07:23, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment after viewing the above and reviewing the sources myself I would like to change my vote to keep. Apologies for not being able to make up my mind. I'll try and improve the content if it needs it. Apologies again.Ch1p the chop (talk) 14:59, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * If you add a couple of the best refs to support the text, it will help. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:05, 19 November 2020 (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.