Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hope and Faith Dever


 * 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. Majorly (talk) 17:44, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Hope and Faith Dever

 * - (View AfD) (View log)

A pair of 18-month-old "actor" twins who show up in various TV shows as babies, aka very realistic props. They're 18 months old: how, exactly, are they "acting" or "playing" anything? Calton | Talk 01:38, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, per nom appearing is not the same as acting. Malla  nox  01:42, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Hope and Faith are more than props, they are two little girls who have appeared in many different TV roles in a year, more than most kids would by age 5. Even if the role is small, to use a baby to film the kid(s) have to be able to feel comfortable working with other kids and not become every time the cameras roll. Agents look for certain things in young children, so they must have shown some kind of promise for agents to choose to represent them. Yes, they are babies but they won't be that way forever and their resume is going to keep on growing. So many other young kids around their age have Wikipedia pages, what should make Hope and Faith any different? ''' — Preceding unsigned comment added by Megan xo (talk • contribs) (Megan xo is the article's author.)
 * Comment/Question Could you please cite specific examples of infants/babies "actors" that have their own articles. SkierRMH 06:47, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not voting on this debate, but if you browse around Category:2004 births and other recent years, there are basically three classes of articles: a) Royals and nobility, b) victims of infamous child murders and medical cases, and c) child actors. Sam Blacketer 20:30, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom and Mallanox's acute observation. -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:34, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete fails WP:BIO, does not WP:CITE sources. Special acting skills that involve crying and pooping your pampers does not meet WP:NOTE in my opinion. --wtfunkymonkey 03:52, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, not much else to say.-- Dmz5 *Edits**Talk* 05:28, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom, fails WP:BIO Nashville Monkey 09:06, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Precedents: Articles for deletion/Hope Logan
 * Articles for deletion/Trevor and Preston Shores


 * Strong Keep - anyone who has appeared in major TV or films is notable. Just because they are babies doesn't stop them being notable. Walton monarchist89 13:26, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * And by the way, if we deleted every article that failed WP:CITE the encyclopedia would be a lot slimmer. Walton monarchist89 13:26, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * You're right! A lot slimmer! And a lot more reliable, a lot more trustworthy, a lot more respected, and a lot more useful.  Wouldn't that just be a terrible shame? Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  14:15, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah, so are you saying we should delete the article on United Arab Emirates? An entire country whose article doesn't have a single source/citation. Better to have some information than aggressively delete anything that can't be instantly verified - where common sense conflicts with WP policy, common sense should prevail, as per Ignore all rules. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Walton monarchist89 (talk • contribs) 17:24, 18 January 2007 (UTC).
 * Sorry for forgetting to sign the above - it's been a long day. Walton monarchist89 18:04, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * What's your basis for asserting that, Walton? An unnamed extra in a crowd scene isn't notable, even if it's a crowd scene in Spider-Man 2. -- Antaeus Feldspar 15:35, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, "appearing" is hardly notable, there is a lot of precedent for deleting articles on actors who have nothing but a couple of bit parts on their resumes - and those are adults who can propel themselves and might even have had a couple lines. Babies on TV shows are, in virtually all cases, essentially props.  I would not be opposed to merging them to List of child actors as apparently happened in a previous similar instance.-- Dmz5  *Edits**Talk* 16:42, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete or Redirect to Molly Lansing. No chance of expansion at present, but could easily be re-created if they grow up to have acting careers (or other notability) later on. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  14:15, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Let's face it, they are props at this stage. They are not called upon to do anything which requires special skills. Presumably, they are in these flicks because of parental connections or some such, not their own merits.  If they wind up being the next Olsen twins, then reassess if and when that happens!--Wehwalt 14:50, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * delete "When taping, Hope is used more often than Faith.", I'd call that an admission of being a prop rather than an actor. Toss it out --Isolani 15:45, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * There is a potential conflict of interest in the article given the apparently personal details (i.e. the OR) the writer knows about the kids.-- Dmz5 *Edits**Talk* 16:43, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep per aboveOo7565 17:53, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete the subjects don't meet any of the criteria at WP:BIO. Just appearing in a movie or television show, even a notable one, does not qualify one for automatic inclusion on Wikipedia.--Isotope23 18:07, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep 40 appearances on one show alone, appearances on 7 different shows, and entries in IMDB. The article and this discussion do not make clear if their appearances were credited or uncredited extras as some comments implied. If the appearances were credited, that argues for notability. The claim that they got the role because they know someone is pure speculation and should be ignored in evaluating the reasons for keeping or deleting. As for "appearing" rather than acting not being enough for an article, chimp J. Fred Muggs gets an article for "appearing" on the Today Show dressed as a baby in diapers. No species-ism, please. Edison 20:25, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * When I said "appearing" I wasn't making a distinction between acting and just being on camera; even "acting" in a notable show or movie is not an automatic qualification of an article per WP:BIO. The subject should have been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works and/or meet one of the sub-criteria for a notable actors and television personality.  These two do not appear to meet either of those conditions, while J. Fred Muggs appears to have been the subject of several non-trivial published works.--Isotope23 20:54, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

^ Delete They do portray a recurring character on a major television show but as noted, they don't seem to have any non-trivial coverage. Perhaps they'll be notable enough in their careers to warrant a Wiki article later, but not right now. DanielEng 07:46, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep if appearances are listed in show credits If the baby's names appear in the show credits, then their names would be considered notable as they have casting credits on notable shows. If, however, the babies are not credited, as with uncredited extras, then the article should be deleted.  The fact that the babies aren't doing much acting doesn't alter the fact that they are notable in the sense that someone reading the show credits might be interested in reading about the people listed there.  Dugwiki 20:40, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per Dugwiki. Saying that whatever it is they do isn't "acting" seems to me to be a value judgment on the quality of their contribution.  Appearing regularly on a major soap opera seems to me to be notable enough.  JCO312 23:16, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Having your name appear on show credits is not non-trivial coverage, as required to be notable. These two do not have any non-trivial coverage. GassyGuy 00:25, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - fails WP:N, lack of non-trivial coverage by reliable sources. Addhoc 12:07, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Babies. Herostratus 07:22, 23 January 2007 (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.