Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joanna Pickering (2nd nomination)


 * 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 moved to Draft:Joanna Pickering. Based on the discussion below, and from the discussion with the subject of the article in, there is a consensus at least that the article doesn't belong in main article space yet. Based on the subject's current work on soon-to-be-released shows that don't yet have coverage, this may be a WP:TOOSOON situation. Therefore, due in part to the urgent nature of the agreement from the subject that it would be best to delete the article until the notability issue is settled, I believe the best compromise at this stage is to move the article to draft space so that it can be improved upon release of the subject's upcoming shows. ~Anachronist (talk) 04:12, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Joanna Pickering
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:CREATIVE and WP:GNG. Sources are too weak to support any notability guideline. Specifically, sources #1, 3, 6, 8, 12 and 17 are interviews with the subject or related people (such as fiancé) and therefore not independent RSes. Source 14 is the subject's own website, not usable as a self-published source. Sources 4 and 13 are blurbs from a minor 25-watt local radio station, as stated on the article talkpage don't contribute much to notability. Many of the other sources are similarly weak: #15-16-18 (reviews of a band she's not in), #19 (name on poster w/o role, also her fiancé's production) - also #21 redirects to same site, and #11 is a Blogspot blog. Sources #7 and #20 fail verification completely: neither mentions the subject. #5 is a dead link impossible to verify but apparently serves to source subject's appearance in an unknown play with unknown writers. The only sources that really work are #2 establishing her undergraduate degree, #9 establishing her role in a single film, and a brief mention of the same role in #10, but this isn't enough for a full BLP. Unsurprisingly, the article was created by a now blocked promotional editor and the subject's personal website has had a link to this Wikipedia article since sometime in 2011, according to Internet Archive, about the same time a New York management agency. This is the result: the worst SPS/interview sources are used for the majority of the citations. Huge sections of the article on the CREATIVE's work are completely unsupported despite the management company's socks returning to prop it up. Summary, still not notable same as in the first deletion debate in 2009. ☆ Bri (talk) 16:48, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:03, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:03, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:03, 17 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete. The article is looking a lot better than it did before despamming and cleanup but now that the fixable problems have been cleaned up we are left with the intrinsic ones and they are serious. The movie she is claimed to be notable for doesn't have an article and seems not to be notable. The TV series she is claimed to be producing has no article. The references are really not great for verification but I assume that it is basically true, albeit cast in a light to make it look far more impressive than it really is. If so, she probably works hard but working hard on non-notable projects does not make you notable. And that is where it really falls down. Where is the notability? A very few bit parts in notable films and TV shows. Some larger parts in non-notable films. The odd mention in a fashion magazine. This is no good. Finally there is the claim that she is notable as a "muse". Whatever happens to the rest of the article I'd like to see that cast into the bitbucket on account of it being 2017 CE. Personally, I don't know many women who wouldn't punch somebody who described them as a "muse". Deleting that part would be a kindness. -DanielRigal (talk) 17:49, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. Promotional and non-notable for the reasons given above. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:13, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete My muse tells me that she might be notable in 3-4 years, but not yet. Independent reliable sources are just not there. Smallbones( smalltalk ) 18:38, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete  Bri sets out a detailed and compelling case for deletion. Edwardx (talk) 20:47, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete as per case set out by nominator - attempts to clean up COI and promotional issues have clearly exposed the lack of notability. Melcous (talk)
 * NOT Delete proper citations needed adding (now added) removing problem of weak sources (more can be added - plenty to find. Regards fiance (which a quick look at his page suggests he is not out to promote her) the sources are in big UK sources/newspapers - scotsman (music) huffington post (film). It is clear she has notable credits if more avant-garde than commercial. All her films are clarified and credited on on imdb credits. There was also proof of awards won in independent film and festival (which is not on page). The notable film - actually has far more press which needs to be added (kubricks) in known sources, as well as two other films. Non primary sources needed adding (added) and further wording needed to be taken out. Further sources are ample - Huffington post etc and major sources as well as avant-garde sources. She is clearly linked to the Creation records scene (via Alan Mcgee) and this is noted as a culturally accepted genre in itself while not mainstream. Previous reading of earlier pages since 2007 suggest she is known for such choices. I found one article noting her a fashion influencer. I agree muse is not a good word, however it is no doubt she has collaborated at this level on projects of not mainstream but cultural significance - including a film at the whitney museum which is leading gallery. Would collaborator be better for her (did a man write the muse part?!) I think we need to keep adding the more relevant sources that are there to be found and actually do the service that is needed.  I would be very nervous to delete a female actors body of work, even if early days, when it is clear many sources have not yet been added. There is editing work to be done, and especially having her management confirm as they handle notable actors in first place. I would hesitate not to work on this and make as concise with proper sources than delete. Cannot find anything for the most beautiful gallery- it is clear she was involved but the source does not load - maybe delete that part.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dp0071125 (talk • contribs) 01:12, 20 July 2017 (UTC)  — Dp0071125 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * NOT delete - added valuable press sources from non primary sources and removed sections that did not have this - it is all verifiable in other sites such as imdb and via directors she has clearly worked with outside mainstream. Have left only information with more press sources that are not primary. Tidied up external links, corrected information that did not fit with those articles linking, and took out the filmographies that are on imdb. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.193.114.163 (talk • contribs)  — 24.193.114.163 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * 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.