Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Katy Brinson


 * 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 Draftify. There seems to be general consensus that this person is not currently notable but has some indications of notability. Giving at least six months of time for notability to be better established by moving to draft space seems like the consensus outcome of those who participated in this discussion. Barkeep49 (talk) 04:30, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Katy Brinson

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP: ENTERTAINER. A bit-part actor who has had no major roles ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 19:24, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete an actor who doesn't appear to be notable. Fails both WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. The Mirror Cracked (talk) 19:26, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:28, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:28, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 21:04, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 21:05, 22 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep in light of info posted below by duffbeerforme. Skeletor3000 (talk) 17:13, 23 January 2020 (UTC) Delete: Not seeing anything except for mentions in credits. Skeletor3000 (talk) 21:14, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete – Fails GNG. Missvain (talk) 00:04, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete does not meet WP:GNG or WP:ENT. PenulisHantu (talk) 00:43, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak keep Delete  probably "well known" to fans of the tv series the subject appeared in, but I cannot find anything that would allow more to be added to the article. Certainly existed, but not enough to pass GNG.  Aoziwe (talk) 04:00, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Changing my !vote as per duffbeerforme and The Drover&#39;s Wife. Yes technically notable but I am concerned as to where and how sources can be found to make the article in-depth and more than a permastub?  Aoziwe (talk) 09:56, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep. Roles for NACTOR. 42 episodes of Rafferty's Rules. See this to see how high her billing was. In all episodes of Kelly (Australian TV series). Also a stage performer. In a notable staging of What the Butler Saw. Austage list multiple reviews . duffbeerforme (talk) 06:39, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep. As Duffbeerforme noticed, she had major/leading roles in two prominent 1980s television series. Her article is crap and her IMDB profile is a bit misleading if you skim it due to her run of nothing roles in the 90s, but she clearly passes WP:NACTOR. (NB: The 1980s are a bit of a black hole for digital Australian media without subscription access to newspaper archives, so Google not turning up much says nada about the availability of sources.) The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 09:22, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep: In addition to the comments already made, Sons and Daughters (Australian TV series) and Prisoner (TV series) were extremely popular shows in Australia in the '80s, so her recurring roles there would also have brought her some notability. Dflaw4 (talk) 14:29, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep I find her notable. duffbeerforme does some good work above. Passes WP:NACTOR. Lightburst (talk) 00:10, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 22:42, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep per duffbeerforme - appears to pass WP:NACTOR. Bookscale (talk) 22:56, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Move to draft/Delete/Oppose keep as failing GNG per nom and . A Google web search turns all up all of 67 non-duplicate search results for the subject—all directory listings, passing mentions, and trivial coverage. The "keep" !votes are either vague waves as a policy or an essay, or they're not making policy-based reasons for keeping. WP:NACTOR is a guidance essay in that it offers supposed notability guidance (commonly abbreviated as an SNG). Many editors, incorrectly, in my view misapply it that it is a substitute for WP:GNG. It is not. One needs only read bullet point #1 of the nutshell which states, and I quote, with emphasis: "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." The good-faith digging of sources by duffbeerforme are trivial mentions to her supposed "billings" (common sense and none of the points at WP:NACTOR make any mention to "billings" as qualifying coverage). (I should note that the most, save for one, of the !votes are spinoff rationales of this flawed argument.) Similar to WP:CORPDEPTH for corporations, I'd call that trite and trivial coverage. Not every actor gets an article. I'd be okay with a weak draftification here, at a satisficing outcome, but, at present, we cannot allow this article to remain in the encyclopedia. Poorly sourced content on non-notable persons is, for lack of a better word, article spam, which, in turn, reflects poorly on the encyclopedia. Doug Mehus  T · C  17:35, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment: To be fair, Doug Mehus T · C , the nomination was that WP:ENTERTAINER wasn't met, so I think that's why the focus has been on WP:NACTOR. Dflaw4 (talk) 02:00, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
 * No Doug Mehus, you have it the wrong way around, you are the one that is misapplying. GNG does not outrank NACTOR. They are companion pieces. Notability is the overarching guideline. One needs only read numbered point #1 of intro which states, and I quote, with emphasis: "It meets either the general notability guideline below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right". As for "billings", common sense says to me that if she is billed that high then her role is significant and that is the word that is in NACTOR. duffbeerforme (talk) 05:45, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , Respectfully, I disagree with you on "billings". And yes, I'm aware WP:GNG says that, but you're missing that the SNG WP:NACTOR is predicated on the words presumed to have (...). In other words, it's not a guarantee that notability has been met. I'll clarify my bolded above. Doug Mehus T · C  13:34, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete no evidence of notability as an actor. ⌚️ (talk) 19:32, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   09:11, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Move to draft pending potential further development. I was able to find a newspaper review commenting on her performance in a play without much effort. BD2412  T 05:32, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Move to draft Came to close, but felt I could do more good by opining. This is on the cusp, but really short of what we expect via GNG, particularly since this is a BLP. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 21:36, 18 February 2020 (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.