Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Imogen Waterhouse


 * 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.  JGHowes   talk  01:47, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Imogen Waterhouse

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The reality is, notability is not inherited from the more famous sister. Any- and everything about "Immy" is always about being related to Suki. Nothing more than a blurb. I have yet to see independent notability. I have yet to see significant coverage without them talking about Suki foremost. "Suki's sister this" or "another Waterhouse that" (there are 4 of them altogether) don't give indication of notability. So for that reason, I am proposing deletion of the article. Trillfendi (talk) 16:02, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:16, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:16, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:16, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
 * No offense, but i'm getting the impression you don't know what you are talking about. Yes, Imogen pursued a career path similar to her sister and her sister probably helped her out. But so so what? That has no bearing on assessing her notability.
 * For an actor/actress you look whether they have appeared in several notable works. Which is true for Imogen who works as an actress now for 5 years and has appeared as a guest star or in supporting role in several notable TV shows and 2 movies. In addition she has a leading role in current tv series out and a had a leading role in a 2018 movie. None of those have anything to do with her sister btw.. So as far as I can see notability as an actress is passed.
 * In addition she probably also passes the notability for models as she had her own vogue cover (without her sister).
 * There have been press reports about her (with and without her sister) for 5 years now and even in non-English languages.


 * All of that you can get more or less from the current WP stub, if you read more than the first two lines or do some research on your own.--Kmhkmh (talk) 16:33, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I have been making articles on this website for years now—over 130 as a matter of fact, and yes some happen to be a family member—so I do know what I’m talking about when I see an apparent lack of independent notability. I’ve been knowing about Suki Waterhouse since 2013; I’ve been editing, and fighting for BLP on her article since 2015, (it was I who resolved the ridiculous dispute about her birthday which happens to be the same day as a certain guy from Philadelphia, for instance). It was I who added names with sources about her siblings, albeit one is now on the blacklist, 3 years ago. So no you can’t say I’ve never “done my research” into Imogen. I added the Tatler source as you can see, as a citation for the names of Suki’s relatives. Not for notability. They give 2 trivial sentences to each family member! And Appearance doesn’t equal notability according to the countless page reviewers and administrators who have said that. And no, she doesn’t have a Vogue cover. An editorial is not a cover. And Even covers are debatable notability for some reason, but that’s another story. If “notability” for an actress is simply appearance in a role to you no wonder there are actor articles in the AfD everyday. Trillfendi (talk) 17:49, 14 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete – I warned this article's author that the subject does not pass WP:NACTOR and especially WP:BASIC (there is pretty much no in-depth coverage of the subject in WP:RSs...), but they ignored the warning. FWIW, I think this should be replaced with a redirect back to Suki Waterhouse, as it was before – it confirms the existence of Imogen Waterhouse, and confirms that she's Suki's sister and an actress. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:25, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Same as above, I suggest you read more than the first 2 lines of the lead. The stub tells you where she grew up, where she got her training as an actress and shortly describes her career as an actress.


 * And yes it is currently only a stub, but notability is not about requiring lengthy articles. You're free to add further details about her acting roles or modeling jobs or her private life. However I didn't set out to create a lenghy article but i changed a dysfunctional Redirect (linking to a non-existing section in Suki Waterhouse, which has almost no information on Imogen anyhow) into a short article that can grow overtime. The rather unfriendly reaction that this triggered (from a speedy deletion request without informing the author for something that is at best AFD case to getting lectured on draft space) strikes somewhat kafkaesque - note that i'm editing WP for good three years longer than you.--Kmhkmh (talk) 16:51, 14 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep – I have been, over the years, both a Deletionist and an Inclusionist. Quite frankly, there are merits to both. Here, there is ample reason for inclusion of the person's article to remain. She is an actor and has appeared in several television programs and at least one film. That in itself is notable. That she is young and will likely expand on her acting career seems likely. She is not her sister, and tying her article as a redirect to her sister's article seems...rude, as if her accomplishments were subsidiary to, or dependent upon her sister. Which of course is wrong. I say leave the article alone, and seek to improve and expand the article. Removing it just means someone else will recreate it when Ms. Waterhouse is cast in something new. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 17:38, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I fail to see how the "let's keep it wait to see if her career actually develops" fallacy is criteria for keeping. Trillfendi (talk) 18:21, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's a mistake I made earlier in my editing career – I've created a couple of articles on the basis of "they're "new" and will likely keep working..." fallacy, and have come to regret it... Bottom line: Waterhouse does not currently have enough coverage to be considered "notable" – she clearly fails WP:BASIC, which is the only discussion that matters in this case. Whether that will change in a year or two is irrelevant: right now it's WP:TOOSOON for an article. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:36, 14 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep as an actress she passes WP:NACTOR ("significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows") since 2015 she appeared in several notable tv shows, 3 movies (2x supporting, 1xleading) and has leading role in current tv series running for 2 seasons now (see filmography in the article). Imho she also passes WP:BASIC as there have been multiple reports on her and/or her work as actress or model in the media/press over the last 6 years (see for instance Radio Times 2018, Tattler 2019, W 2016, Fashionist 2016, Town & country 2017, Daily Mail 2015, Telegraph 2015, Vogue 2018, Elle 2015, Gala 2014 (German)). In addition to the formal notability argument one may ask the question about what is supposed to be gained her by a deletion at this point. Before this (expandable) article stub was created, there had been a redirect in the ANS already leading to the more famous older sister Suki Waterhouse informing us that she has a sister named Imogen. No information on her education, acting or modelling career not even her full name, so from that perspective a deletion and/or return to the redirect seems like clear disservice to our readers to me.  Probably also worth mentioning that the German Wikipedia already has an article on her for about a year, which roughly matches the time she started passing WP:NACTOR.--Kmhkmh (talk) 07:14, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
 * My God, you've been here more than long enough to know better. By now you should know what type of sources quantify notability. For you to think just any website mentioning her name is usable or acceptable (including the BANNED Daily Mail) is egregious and quite frankly, nonsensical. The German Wikipedia article's only references given are Famousbirthdays.com for fuck's sake, not even remotely a reliable source, and "Suki's sister follows her in the fashion industry", an article that focuses on Suki's accomplishments only saying Imogen "dreams of one day modeling for Topshop" (which she has yet to do) and that she is signed to the same agency, which isn't an accomplishment. And no, she's not a notable model having only done 12 jobs in the past 4 years. I'm still trying to figure out how the uncredited appearance of "daughter" in The Last Photograph or one line in Nocturnal Animals are "significant". As for The CW's "The Outpost", I neither see what routine listing of Waterhouse in parentheses for playing a character does for notability. Trillfendi (talk) 15:11, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Indeed I'm long enough around to know that your argument is not correct and it doesn't become any more correct via repetition.
 * a) The Daily Mail is not banned as such, but her use as a source is discouraged (I actually participated in the discussion that got it "banned"). I listed it above merely to show a somewhat regular press coverage over the last 6 year (as the sentence states). All the links listed above are media/press publications rather than merely arbitrary sites mentioning her name, some of them you used yourself as a source before if I'm not mistaken.
 * b) I'm not arguing she is notable as a model (as such) but as an actress.
 * c) Notability is not about "accomplishments" or a reward WP bestows for such "accomplishments". The basic motivation behind the notability of the article's topic is the (potential) interest to readers and Wikipedia can provide information on the subject in an encyclopedic fashion.
 * d) Yes, the article on the German Wikipedia uses famousbirthdays.com to verify her date of birth, which is probably a mistake by whoever editor did that. However it does not use it to determine the notability, the notability for actresses is determined by de:Wikipedia:Relevanzkriterien which roughly the same as similar to WP:NACTOR.
 * e) As far as her roles in Nocturnal Animals and The Last Photograph is concerned, I don't know more specific details and haven't seen the films myself, I took the information the according IMDB entries and news articles mentioning her participation.
 * d) As far as her role in the Outpost is concerned, I've no idea what you exactly mean by "routine listing in parenthesis". Yes, films and shows (and their descriptions in sources) routinely list their actors/actresses - so?. As far as it connection to notability is concerned, I'd thought it is rather obvious, that a leading role in tv series contributes to "significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows" (WP:NACTOR). Or is it that you are not clear about the exact scope of her role? In this case let me assure you her role is significant and central to series (This one I've actually seen myself rather then just compiling it from sources). So for arguments sake, let's discount her roles in Nocturnal Animal and The Last Photograph due to potentially not being significant enough, then you still have her as a guest star in several notable tv shows, as a lead in a movie (Braid) and as a regular in a leading role on the Outpost. That still passes WP:NACTOR.--Kmhkmh (talk) 00:02, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Last I checked when someone tries to add the Daily Mail as a source the action is blocked. For acting, I don't see how a few "small parts" contribute to notability as an actor. That would make anybody with a SAG card notable and 160,000 useless articles of people who did things such as appear in a Reese's Puffs commercial or as an extra on Modern Family–obviously that's not how it works. Mere appearance in a show that can't crack a million viewers is now notability? The bar has become that low to y'all? That's sad. What happened to performance. Is that not how an actor gets recognition? Trillfendi (talk) 00:41, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Technically speaking the Daily Mail is not blocked but deprecated, meaning if you try to use it in an article you get a warning/strong advice not to use it short of certain exceptions, you are however not blocked/banned from using it. The Daily Mail has repeatedly not to say endlessly been discussed at Reliable sources/Noticeboard (see archives). The (temporary) decision of the discussion I vaguely recalled on top of my head was to discourage the use of the Daily Mail, albeit with different template than the one for deprecated sources you currently see.


 * As far as notability of actors is concerned significant roles in multiple notable shows/films is the criteria not any appearance in any show or commercials. And yes that potentially allows still for large number articles (as notability for most subjects/topics does). Formal arguments aside it is imho somewhat fair to assume that actors being regulars in notable tv series or in movies are of interest to readers. In fact that is exactly how I ended up creating the stub in the first place: I looked up the Outpost on Wikipedia and clicked on the linked actors and in the case of Imogen Waterhouse I ended up with that somewhat unfortunate Redirect (this) linking to a non-existing section in the article for Suki Waterhouse.--Kmhkmh (talk) 02:07, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
 * It shouldn’t have been redirected in the first place, but there goes what I’ve been saying this whole time: the belief that Imogen’s notability has been contingent upon Suki’s. Trillfendi (talk) 02:20, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 14:59, 22 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep - clearly passes WP:NACTOR even just on the basis of having a major role in The Outpost and lead role in a movie (let alone her other roles). How is notability even a serious question now? Glenbarnett (talk) 01:44, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Lead role in what movie? None. Trillfendi (talk) 01:56, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I've already explained that several times now including in an earlier discussion we had above, she had a lead role in the 2018 horror movie Braid.--Kmhkmh (talk) 06:49, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * What was “notable” about the virtually unknown VOD film that undoubtedly you never heard of until a week ago perusing her IMDb, because if you’re scraping the bottom of the barrel, existence of a film isn’t notability of it. Trillfendi (talk) 07:42, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The notability of film does not depend on you or me having heard of it. The notability of a film can be due to variety of reasons but first and foremost of course for getting reviewed in news outlets, film magazines and review site of well known movie critics. The probably best known general film review site Rotten Tomatoes currently lists 19 reviews for Braid among them the Los Angeles Times, The New York Times and Variety. It might be also worthwhile to point out that Braid is not "just" a VOD film, but it was shown on several film festivals and had a limited theatrical release as well. That aside a theatrical release is of course no requirement for a movie to be notable. Many tv movies or streamed movies are considered notable (in a general sense as well as in the wikipedia notability for an article sense).--Kmhkmh (talk) 17:32, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Because WP:NACTOR is a sideshow – people are only presumed to be notable on that basis (and it's a serious question that she even passes NACTOR anyway): the important guideline is WP:BASIC, which demands significant (and in-depth) independent coverage which this subject has not received. So, no – it's a very serious question in this case, and the benchmark has not been met. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:28, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
 * And very serendipitous how all of a sudden an article for the film has materialized out of almost thin air. Trillfendi (talk) 18:57, 26 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep per WP:NACTOR and WP:NMODEL. She was the main subject of the article "Sitting Pretty.(Imogen Waterhouse )" by Guiducci, Mark Vogue, 2015, Vol.205(8), p.188. She was a headlining model of Aldo's 2017 Fall Campaign which was reviewed in "Aldo Introduces Fall Campaign", Wireless News, July 29, 2017 and "Aldo celebrates individuality and love through its fall 2017 campaign", PR Newswire Europe, July 24, 2017. She also headlined an international campaign for British Airways (see "Imogen the Possibilities This Winter, with British Airways, New Winter Schedule", India Aviation News, Oct 31, 2017 and "BA celebrates 80 years of Hong Kong service with VIP gala", TradeArabia, Apr 12, 2016) 4meter4 (talk) 01:13, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Once again, people truly fail to understand the ever-debated NMODEL criteria (then again this is the same website that where just months ago editors who know scrap about fashion really tried to claim avowed supermodel Birgit Kos "wasn’t notable" because reliable sources were "name dropping" designers she walked for. Complete ignorance but what else is new). This certainly isn’t it. A "notable" model yet hasn’t modeled in years? And only did a handful of jobs in a 2 year span? An Aldo shoe ad and a British Airways ad is all you could muster up? That’s not how any of this works. You have to even be a working model to become a notable model, for one. (Exhibit A) And that Vogue piece by Guiducci goes back to exactly what I’ve been saying this whole time—this brief blurb only talked about Suki, and comparisons to Cara Delevinge’s model sisters. Nothing about her own career! Trillfendi (talk) 06:53, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
 * User:Trillfendi, I think you are missing the point about sustained coverage over the length of time in the entertainment field as a whole. On a side note, I find your interaction with other editors in this discussion to be condescending and rude. You won't convince other people you are right by insulting their intelligence.4meter4 (talk) 12:56, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
 * That doesn’t change the fact of all this “coverage” being about perceived inherited notability of being Suki’s sister (...following in the footsteps of her sister Suki, Suki’s little sister... [a headline that doesn’t even mention her name]; the common motif.) with any of it barely even bothering to note what she has done with her own career exploits. Nor does it change what is NMODEL. And if she were actually a notable model why does this article make no mention of it? Now if I cared about being a sweetheart maybe I would become a kindergarten teacher. Trillfendi (talk) 18:37, 30 September 2019 (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.