Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leah N.H. Philpott


 * 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. —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 09:09, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Leah N.H. Philpott

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non notable actress failing to satisfy WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. A WP:BEFORE I conducted shows gross non notability. Celestina007 (talk) 06:06, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 06:06, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 06:06, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 06:06, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 06:06, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 07:04, 20 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete, without prejudice against recreation in the future if her notability and sourceability improve. Passing NACTOR is not simply a matter of listing roles — if it were, then every actor who exists at all would always automatically pass NACTOR, because having acting roles is literally the job description. Rather, passing NACTOR's "notable for having had roles" criterion is a matter of reliably sourcing the article to some evidence of significant coverage about her having had roles. The sources here aren't doing that, however: #1 is an article whose core subject is the filmmaker who directed a film she's in, and it's paywalled so I can't verify whether it contains any substantive content about her or just trivially namechecks her existence; #2 is a blurb in the "alumni announcements" column of the newsletter of the acting school she attended, which is not a reliable or notability-supporting source at all; #3 just verifies a stray fact about another film she's in while completely failing to even mention Philpott's name in conjunction with it. This is not the kind of sourcing it takes to support an article if you're going for "notable because she's been in stuff". She may get the kind of coverage it takes in the future, given that her most potentially notability-making roles are in future films that went into production this year and haven't actually been released yet — so an article can certainly be recreated if and when that happens, but nothing here is already enough today. Bearcat (talk) 13:57, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete maybe the planned role will amount to something, but nothing shows notability yet.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:53, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 * KEEP #1 is an article that mentions Philpott by name as one of three starring in the film (which is being distributed by Lionsgate, and also mentions her work on American Honey. #2, The Actor Factory Memo, is a newsletter written by Chris Freihofer, CSA, a significant casting director for film and television in the south region of the United States.  The Actor Factory newsletter frequently includes casting calls for major SAG productions and other film related news.  This is most definitely a reliable source.  #3 Is simply supporting a fact in relation to "street casting."  Philpott's Extras Casting credit on the film is noted on IMDb.  Cranston Snord (talk) 16:53, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 * An article has to do more than just mention her name to support her notability, so #1 is not enough all by itself. An article has to be from a reliable source to help establish her notability, so #2 isn't doing anything. And an article doesn't support her notability at all if it's just verifying stray facts without even mentioning her name at all in conjunction with them, so #3 isn't doing anything either. Which leaves us with #1, which, again, is not enough all by itself. Bearcat (talk) 03:05, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
 * #2 is a reliable source. Just because you haven't heard of it doesn't make it not reliable or well known and respected in the film/television and acting community.  Look up Chris Freihofer, who writes the memos. Cranston Snord (talk) 19:22, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Reliable sourcing means media outlets and books, not the self-published websites of organizations the article subject is directly affiliated with. Reliability, for the purposes of establishing notability, is not a question of the parent organization's "respect in the film/television and acting community" — it's a question of whether the website in question is or isn't a media outlet, independent of the claims being made, doing third party journalism about a person whose career it does not have a vested interest in. By the same token, a person is not notable enough for an encyclopedia article just because she has a staff profile on the website of her own employer, or her own self-published website about herself: those aren't likely to be inaccurate about the details of the person's career, but they're not notability makers, because they aren't independent of the subject's own self-promotional web presence. Bearcat (talk) 17:06, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete As per Bearcat.- Nahal (T) 21:20, 20 December 2019 (UTC)*
 * Delete Insufficiently referenced and no independent sources to supplement the present references. Fails WP:NACTOR.  scope_creep Talk  13:06, 21 December 2019 (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.