Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kendra Timmins (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 delete. Kurykh (talk) 00:52, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Kendra Timmins
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Was deprodded without rationale. Current sourcing is all press releases. Might be a case of WP:TOOSOON, as her latest role seems to be significant, but it is her only significant role. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFILM.  Onel 5969  TT me 14:05, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep: Passed WP:NACTOR with significant roles in multiple notable TV series (Wingin' It and Ride). StAnselm (talk) 19:50, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
 * NACTOR is passed when the actor or actress in question is shown to be the subject of reliable source coverage for the holding of "significant" roles. It is not passed just because it's asserted, or if the references are blogs and press releases from the shows' own production companies. Bearcat (talk) 18:57, 5 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment: I'll need to look more at this one, but I'll be away from Wiki for a few days. Among Ride, Wingin' It and the film Lost After Dark, I think she might technically pass WP:NACTOR. What I'm not at all convinced is that she will pass WP:GNG (i.e. I'm guessing she's received almost no press coverage on her own), so I'll have to look at available sourcing when I can get back to Wiki... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:00, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:33, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:33, 5 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete. An actor or actress does not get an automatic NACTOR pass just because "significant" roles are listed in the article — reliable source coverage about the performer has to be present to verify that the roles were actually as "significant" as claimed. But four of the five sources here are either blogs or press releases, not reliable source coverage — and while one of the references is a reliable source, if you're aiming for "passes NACTOR because her work exists" rather than "passes NACTOR because she won an Emmy or an Oscar or a Canadian Screen Award" then it takes more than just one reliable source to get there. No prejudice against recreation in the future if and when she can be sourced better than this, but what's present here right now is nowhere near enough. Bearcat (talk) 18:57, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete per Bearcat. 2001:569:70DD:7500:39EA:19D8:DF90:EF4D (talk) 20:06, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete – unfortunately, it's not even close: I have found zero mentions of Timmins not only at the usual television media publications (e.g. Variety, THR, EW, LA Times, Deadline, and TVLine) but I also can't even find mentions of her in major Canadian media (e.g. The Globe and Mail, The Toronto Sun, or Vancouver Sun) – that's definitive: this is one of the clearest WP:GNG fails I've ever come across. I do disagree with Bearcat about one thing though – the "significance" of Timmins' roles can be established by things like crediting: in that regard, Timmins' roles (one clear lead role, a main credited role on a second TV series, and a lead or near-lead role in a film) are objectively "significant". The problem is that the TV series and films themselves appear to be generally on the low side of notability, which means the actors in said roles get no coverage on their own. In any case, Bearcat and I do come to the same conclusion: Timmins is not currently notable enough for a standalone article. So the result should be delete. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:07, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Does WP:NACTOR need to be changed then? What's the use of having a subject-specific guideline if WP:GNG is the only standard that is used? StAnselm (talk) 19:44, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
 * No – it's simply a guideline, and can't possibly cover every possible eventuality. What it's basically saying is "Actors will generally be presumed notable if... [it meets one of these criteria]". But there will be cases where even having "multiple significant" roles will not get a subject to notability (e.g. because the shows or films involved were low profile). Similarly, there will be cases where a single "significant" role alone will get an actor to notability. Ultimately, the "controlling" guidelines are WP:BASIC and WP:GNG. But it's definitely possible to "technically" pass WP:NACTOR (etc.) while still failing WP:BASIC and/or WP:GNG (the latter of which are more important). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:37, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Every topic on Wikipedia always has to clear GNG — SNGs exist to clarify the types of things that count as valid notability claims, but the claim itself still has to be supported by reliable source coverage before it actually makes the article keepable. The SNGs do not exempt a person from having to clear GNG on the sourceability — they just codify the types of statements that show notability if they're supported by GNG, but GNG does still have to be met, and passage of the SNG cannot just be claimed without sourcing it properly. And that's especially true if you're shooting for the weakest NACTOR criterion, "notable because she's had roles", rather than the strong ones like "notable because she's won an Oscar or an Emmy or a Canadian Screen Award". The thing is that people can and do make inflated or even outright false claims that an article subject passes an SNG — wannabe-notable writers, for example, frequently conflate "was submitted to the award committee for consideration" with "nominated for the award" so that they can claim to pass AUTHOR on the basis of a literary award nomination they don't really have, articles have been created about actors which claimed that they "starred" in a film or TV series in which they actually had a minor unnamed walk-on part at best once the claim was researched, and people have created hoax articles about topics that didn't actually exist at all. So an article cannot get kept just because passage of an SNG has been claimed; it gets kept only if and when reliable source coverage, counting toward passage of GNG, properly verifies that the claim to passing the SNG is true. Bearcat (talk) 19:05, 9 March 2017 (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.