Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Katie Griffiths (3rd 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 speedy keep. Withdrawn - AFD's becoming a waste of time so I shall withdraw and gut the entire article with everyones blessing. (non-admin closure) – Davey 2010 Merry Xmas / Happy New Year 21:32, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Katie Griffiths
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Prev AFD closed as "no consensus. - No prejudice against speedy renomination due to low participation" so am renominating again, Non notable actress, found a few mentions but nothing substantial, Fails BASIC & GNG. – Davey 2010 Talk 14:46, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America1000 15:28, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America1000 15:28, 14 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep - Looks like easily passes WP:NACTOR. Was one of the principal cast members of Waterloo Road specifically as the role of Chlo Grainger.  Also was in multiple episodes of Casualty and a supporting role in all three episodes of Hatfields & McCoys.--Oakshade (talk) 21:32, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Being in a few notable programmes is great however take away IMDB and you have 2 BBC sources which are only mentions, And with the greatest of respect she's been acting since 2008 so there should be something substantial, ofcourse if you can find anything substantial I'd be more than happy to withdraw. – Davey 2010 Talk 22:11, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:57, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep Passes WP:NACTOR since she had roles in "multiple notable TV shows". Both Casualty and Waterloo Road are notable shows. -- HighKing ++ 18:56, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
 * No one has said anything about NACTOR - As I said she still fails BASIC & GNG. – Davey 2010 Merry Xmas / Happy New Year 20:12, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I disagree. The WP:NACTOR guideline was developed to assist in determining whether an artist/actor is notable and merits an article. Although you may say that every article should pass WP:BASIC and WP:GNG, we'd only be trotting out debates that have been had numerous times in the past as to why actors are a little different and that "episodes" are effectively publications, etc, etc, and that is exactly why the WP:NACTOR guideline was developed. Rest assured I've no intention of rehashing the old arguments. Suffice to say, Ms. Griffiths in an actress and meets (and exceeds) the criteria set out in the WP:NACTOR guidelines and for me, I've no need to look beyond that in this case. -- HighKing ++ 16:21, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately I have no idea about the past discussions and like yourself I'd rather not get in to a whole big debate over it but atleast IMHO all articles should pass BASIC atleast, I agree with you episodes are like publications however there should be substantial/in-depth sources aswell .... Take away IMDB at present we have 2 episode sources which isn't good enough, All articles are expected to have more than 2 episode sources especially when they've acting since 1999. – Davey 2010 Merry Xmas / Happy New Year 19:02, 23 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Strong keep The nomination here seems to be caught up in the red tape of contradictory policies rather than the obvious reality that a main actor/actress in a series like Waterloo Road is inherently qualified. The fact that she hasn't had newspaper features about her or similar is irrelevant, unless you are arguing this is a WP:HOAX. If individuals meet clear criteria, we don't need to dig for links for them, and to start a precedent of this would be a time drain. AFD nominations should solely be for cases where notability is in question, and so this would be better solved via the article's talk page. KaisaL (talk) 17:31, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * One doesn't become notable just for being in one film or programme, All BLPs on this project are expected to meet BASIC atleast which this unfortunately doesn't, We have statements in the article like "Katie Griffiths was born in St Albans, Hertfordshire and attended Garden Fields Primary School." and "born in 6 April 1989" - Not one source is available to back these up so therefore could well be untrue and so can any of the other info in the article, That's the entire point of this AFD - There is no notability, I've said this elsewhere but I don't expect millions upon millions of in-depth coverage however for someone who's been acting for the past 10 years there should be something better than just 2 small mentions. – Davey 2010 Merry Xmas / Happy New Year 18:34, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I disagree with you, I'm afraid. Katie was in four series of Waterloo Road as a main cast member. This isn't a case of someone playing an extra in one episode, it's a full cast role in a prominent series (not one I care about, but it is). That alone means no other qualifiers are needed, else we're acting outside of the specific policies on figures in entertainment. If the other information is not referenced and you're unhappy about that, you're welcome to remove it. There's a big difference between non-notable and not being high-profile, her performances in that one series are more than enough. In short, you're holding her to higher standards than our policies require. KaisaL (talk) 20:08, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately I disagree with you, I know she was and that's great but like with any other articles BLPs need adequate sourcing, The article has been here for the best part of 8 years and the sources have never improved since (because there's nothing on her) and lets be honest here the article won't be sourced from hereon in, I appreciate she may meet NACTOR in terms of what she's been in however BASIC still needs to be met (I usually go for GNG however I'm trying to be as lenient as I can here), If you believe she's notable for being in WR then why not Redirect to WR instead and that way the articles history can be preserved?, I've sourced many non-prolific BLPs and it's easy as pie when the sources are there (even if they're harder to find it's still more or less easy to do) and I appreciate not everyone gets something written about them but the issue is there's not even mentions let alone in-depth stuff, If there was mentions I would be happy with that and wrap this up but unfortunately there's absolutely nothing, – Davey 2010 Merry Xmas / Happy New Year 21:00, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I suppose I'm old school and feel that AFD is for cases of notability, not an article with limited scope for depth and improvement. I'd rather a two sentence stub for a notable subject than discussing the possibility of deleting them entirely. It doesn't seem like you really dispute her notability, just a lack of references, which for me isn't an issue for this process. KaisaL (talk) 21:07, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Personally I would say they're still non notable tho, In a roundabout way there's no evidence of notability here other than her role in WR, Ah well, Thanks anyway, – Davey 2010 Merry Xmas / Happy New Year 21:46, 28 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep - Notable per WP:ENTERTAINER, has had significant roles in multiple notable films ✅. - The   Magnificentist  15:42, 29 December 2016 (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.