Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Klariza Clayton


 * 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 keep. Jimfbleak - talk to me?  06:24, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Klariza Clayton

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non notable actress, Google brings up mentions but nothing substantial, Fails NACTOR & GNG. – Davey 2010 Talk 21:55, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions.  SST  flyer  12:22, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  SST  flyer  12:22, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions.  SST  flyer  12:22, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions.  SST  flyer  12:22, 27 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep Had recurring role in major TV series Skins of which I remember well enough to search for her in the first place! IMDB also suggests she had a recurring 4 year role in another major children's TV series Dani's House amounting to 49 episodes. A brief glance through her wiki page suggests this article should never have been put forward for deletion. Sails past WP: NACTOR Englishrose (talk) 12:43, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
 * She's been in notable programmes but as DGG notes below one one small role in 1 series isn't enough - Most of her roles haven't been long term at all but regardless of that the article still fails GNG, For someone who's been acting for 9 years there should be tons of sources here .... but there's not ... they're all just mentions which are useless here. – Davey 2010 Talk 03:43, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
 * She had a major role in Dani's House, a notable Childrens TV show. She was a lead character for 4 years and appeared in 46 episodes. She had a major role in House of Anubis, she was in it for 2 years and starred in 99 episodes. Englishrose (talk) 22:13, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
 * My apologies you're right she has!, Well okay she seems to meet NACTOR however she still fails GNG which is the biggest issue here. – Davey 2010 Talk 23:00, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
 * GNG: "This page in a nutshell: For an actor, missing out on meeting the GNG is not the final nail in the coffin." To quote ' DGG on the GNG talkpage "We ought more lenient in the nature of the sources for actors in fields where mainstream sources are not customarily available, as for other subjects where that is the case" - she's prodimantly a children's tv actress which makes it difficult to meet GNG as children's tv is not held up in the same regards as mainstream drama. It's a jugement call but I don't believe GNG should be the sole reason for deletion and as it's now been established it's the sole reason, I still say keep. Englishrose (talk) 20:24, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:00, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. no major roles. A minor recurrent role in one series is not sufficient.  DGG ( talk ) 02:52, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
 * She's had two major roles in two other major shows, spanning multiple series. Dani's House (3 series, 46 episodes), House of Anubis (3 series, 99 peisodes) Englishrose (talk) 22:15, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I cannot pretend to know these series, but from the WP article the role in Dani's house is quite subsidiary. From the WP aticle on House of Anubos, I can't figure out the plot, so I have no comment except that apparently she disappears in or before the first episode.  DGG ( talk ) 02:20, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Walton (talk) 21:34, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep Had major roles in two major TV series in both the UK and the US. Also had a large recurring role in a further series. In addition, to this has made several appearances in other TV programmes, and a few minor roles in films. Meets Nactor; there's enough here to keep. Somethingwickedly (talk) 15:40, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
 * And yet there's nothing at all to confirm any of the programmes she's been in, Two-bit mentions aren't good enough - I don't expet tons and tons of substantial sources however I do expect atleast 2 substantial which as far as I can see there isn't, As I've said if you can find any then I'll happily withdraw but until that time comes then there's no valid reason for keeping. – Davey 2010 Talk 15:57, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I thought IMDB would be sufficient? Englishrose (talk) 11:52, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Nope IMDB isn't a rs per wp:imdb. – Davey 2010 Talk 20:16, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
 * This is not a guideline or policy and actually supports the use of IMDB in these way it is used. "The IMDb should be used only as a tertiary source for hard data on released films." - which is what it is being used for. Englishrose (talk) 22:20, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
 * IMDB isn't a reliable source as it's exactly like this website - User-submitted, (Citing IMDB would be like simply citing an article if that makes sense) and although Citing IMDb isn't policy it's still strongly adhered too, You can ask any editor and that'd tell you the exact same thing, Unfortunately all of the sources you've added are mentions. – Davey 2010 Talk 22:34, 19 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete -- no sources have been presented at this AfD (nor available in the article) that discuss the subject directly and in detail. A technical pass of an SNG (if this is indeed the case here, of which I am not convinced) does not exempt the article from demonstrating the notability via reliable independent sources. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:09, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
 * You might be mistaken. In the relatively shorter term period, SNG does allow the same (that is, exempting the article from demonstrating GNG via reliable independent sources), and that is the reason it exists. The reason NACTOR exists is to allow such cases to be kept in initial Afds, so that editors can search for reliable sources to push the subject over time towards BASIC or GNG. Of course, if this article were to come up for deletion after a few months and there were to be still no sources supporting this said push, my !vote would be delete. But right now, it is keep. Thanks. Lourdes  06:58, 20 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep There's enough here to suggest that she is a notable. Maybe another source would be good, but there's definitely enough here to keep it. Cindlevet (talk) 19:37, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
 * You do realize both sources are dead on't you?... – Davey 2010 Talk 20:16, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I've sorted that and updated the links for you. Englishrose (talk) 21:55, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks but unfortunately she's still non notable - We don't use pictures as cites, The database is simply a mention (and the source you've added is again only a mention) so again all in all they're still nn. – Davey 2010 Talk 22:01, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
 * As you said earlier she meets Wiki: NACTOR, which sets out ways to define whether an actor or actress is notable. Englishrose (talk) 22:29, 19 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep NACTOR doesn't require sources to discuss the appearance in depth; NACTOR only requires that there is evidence provided that the subject has appeared in those roles. Sources have been provided that proves the same. I have myself added two more sources (one a book by John Blake publishing and the other a Hearst Magazines' publication), both confirming her having appeared in 99 episodes of one serial and in considerable seasons of Skins. Having said that, a plain reading of NACTOR signifies that the guideline is only to ensure that subjects, who may probably later qualify on GNG and for whom sources may later be obtained, may not be deleted instantaneously; which is what is being requested here by the editors like Englishrose. DGG has clearly said he has no idea of what the serials are; and his reference to WP as a source of his knowledge leads to low confidence in his Delete comment.
 * Coffman and Davey2010 have given the right arguments for GNG; but they are mistaken in the analysis of NACTOR, especially of the requirement of gng sources and the depth of discussion thereon. NACTOR says, and I quote: "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." I repeat, the requirement is not for GNG sources (which would anyway defeat the purpose of NACTOR, wouldn't it) but for sources that confirm such roles. I would suggest to the closing editor that if this Afd is closed as Keep, it should be closed with no prejudice against an early deletion nomination, should sources in due course not be added that push the subject towards either BASIC or GNG. Thanks. Lourdes  07:02, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for adding those sources - For the record I never expect tons of substantial sources however I do try & get substantial stuff or as close I can too that, The NACTOR aswell as the renomination in the future are both I strongly disagree with however I won't moan over it - You've provided sources which I'm happy with (If these were found early on we wouldn't be here now), Anyway thanks for finding and adding sources :), Thanks, – Davey 2010 Talk 13:37, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the gracious reply. Look forward to interacting with you in the future. Lourdes  02:28, 21 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Withdrawn - Unfortunately because of the Deletes here I can't close myself however sources have been added which I'm happy with so this should probably be closed as No Consensus, Thanks, – Davey 2010 Talk 13:37, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
 * With your withdrawal, and with a majority of keep comments post the re-list, this Afd might be closed as a Keep rather than a no consensus. Thanks for withdrawing. See you around. Lourdes  13:51, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
 * IMHO arguments were strong on both sides but my main push for NC was so that it could be renominated (by another editor) if they're not happy but obviously I have no objections to Keep, No worries & see you around :) – Davey 2010 Talk 14:11, 20 November 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.