Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jada Facer


 * 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 no consensus. As has been pointed out here, GNG and NACTOR require more than one source/role in order to justify keeping an article. Now there is apparently disagreement on whether it's one source or two which meet WP:BASIC criteria, and neither the argument in favour of the second source nor the one against is particularly compelling as they are mostly just assertions. So in my assessment there is no consensus here. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:03, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Jada Facer

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Subject certainly does not meet WP:NACTOR (no "main cast" roles in anything), and almost certainly doesn't meet WP:BASIC regardless. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:12, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:12, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:12, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * The Larson source in the article is surprisingly substantial, and could support more of an article than we currently have, as it covers education and family background of the subject. I haven't found a second source that is as substantial as that, that isn't non-independent publicity blurb or WWW echoes of unidentifiable provenance and authorship.  I am strongly in favour of multiple independent good sources, whose authors can be identified and have reputations for accuracy.  Uncle G (talk) 04:41, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, AmericanAir88(talk) 21:13, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 21:24, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 21:24, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 21:24, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 21:24, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 21:24, 20 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Weak keep 10 episodes of Melissa & Joey might be considered to meet WP:NACTOR. As per Uncle G, the first citation is good. The last has merit too. I'd say this sneaks in as a pass. Bondegezou (talk) 15:57, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep even if the nominator does not believe that an actress with many roles in mainstream national programming passes WP:NACTOR...article references speak to the notability of the subject. WP:NEXIST The subject has non-trivial coverage. subject must pass one or the other - I believe subject passes both. Lubbad85  (☎)(Edits) 14:06, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
 * WP:NEXIST is always a problematic claim, and is doubly so in a case like this – this isn't some actress from the 1920s, but a current child actress. IOW, if sources on this subject exist, they'll be easy to find, not difficult. Yet, this article has one solid source, perhaps two – that does not pass WP:BASIC, and if you're going to claim the subject does you need to provide proof. In addition, one single, recurring role on one TV series does not meet the requirements of WP:NACTOR. So far, none of the "keep" votes have provided any evidence that the subject passes either BASIC or NACTOR. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:08, 24 June 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.