Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jen Drohan


 * 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. Daniel (talk) 00:19, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Jen Drohan

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Rather than WP:PROD this article, I've decided to take it to AfD because I'd like a wider discussion. The case for deletion here is more on the WP:BASIC end – while I doubt the subject meets WP:NACTOR either, that gets harder to parse when you're dealing with theater actors (the TV work all appears to be at the "guest star" level). But after some WP:BEFORE work, all of the coverage I can find is of the "passing mention" type – there does not appear to be an significant "in depth" coverage of this subject. So the case for a standalone WP:BLP article is shaky, at best. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:22, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:22, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:22, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone  18:09, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone  18:09, 18 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete Mostly bit parts or one-offs on television and in film, nothing notable. Oaktree b (talk) 20:37, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete not enough significant roles in notable productions to establish notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:12, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep Coverage in some significant publications, Variety, LA Times, Hollywood Reporter, NY Times, etc. Peter303x (talk) 02:01, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * That's not the question – the question is whether the coverage itself is significant and in-depth. "Passing mentions", even in "significant publications", don't help towards this. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:07, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The quality of the publication is also a deciding factor. If they were BS publications, you would have many editors here saying they are all SEO, PR, etc. Still voting Keep. Peter303x (talk) 02:19, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom, and the subject does not satisfy SIGCOV with this "coverage" mentioned above. All passing mentions. – DarkGlow (contribs • talk) 11:41, 20 January 2021 (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.