Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leslie Becker


 * 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 delete. Mainly per G7, but a little bit of SNOW/IAR as well. Primefac (talk) 16:19, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Leslie Becker

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails all four points of WP:NCREATIVE. Not "widely cited by peers or successors"; not "known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique"; not a "significant or well-known work or collective body of work...the primary subject of an independent and notable work"; not subject of "a significant monument" etc. Likewise WP:NACTOR. ☆ Bri (talk) 16:51, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:NACTOR.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 17:03, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions.  M assiveYR   ♠  17:39, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions.  M assiveYR   ♠  17:39, 10 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep The nom has failed to take note of WP:GNG. Talking about WP:NCREATIVE is fine but that guideline specifically says: Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; ... A person who fails to meet these additional criteria may still be notable under Notability. Since the sources   etc. all have significant biographies on her, and given there is a significant number of supporting references to her in other reliable sources this is a keep for me.  Dysklyver  19:38, 10 October 2017 (UTC)


 * It was intentional, I am guided by the mini-essay "It is not possible to tell whether or not something is notable by the WP:GNG" at User:DGG. As DGG says, these marginal cases can be argued either way. We need to examine it at this AfD on its merits, not by a rote formula.
 * By the way, is California College of the Arts (your second reference) definitely talking about the same individual? They look different and have different fields of study (graphic arts vs theater). And the third reference is a press release. So by your own standards this individual may not probably does not fulfill GNG. ☆ Bri (talk) 23:59, 10 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete Agree with User:MassiveYR. Also concerns of connectedness between the creator this article and the subject. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 01:11, 11 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment, if you are going to appeal to the GNG, it has to be used as it is supposed to be. The GNG is not based on   what  is reported in the references, but on the fact that there are substantial independent third party references that are not just press releases or notices--the principle behind it is  that independent sources find her worth writing about. Consider  your references.  References 1 and 2  not independent--they will do to establish the basic facts or her career, but are worthless for notability, because it is the bio of her on her own employer's web site. Ref 2 furthermore is unreliable no matter where published because it is not a NPOV description, but unsupported praise of her, and is therefore in the nature of a press release.   Reference 3 is a plain press release, labelled as such.  All three of this fail the requirements of the GNG, which was written in order to make plain that references such as these do not show notability . I can often argue the detailed requirements of the GNG in either direction, but I can not possibly argue that these three meet it, because they unquestionably do not.  If I think she is notable, it would have to be based on some other reason,such as showing she met the requirements at WP:CREATIVE, and can thus be presumed notable, despite the quality of the references.  DGG ( talk ) 02:28, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Agree with everything DGG said, but I'm really wondering if this reference 2, California College of the Arts faculty, is the same person. Unless they can be two places at once it seems unlikely, as they are showing up as available for gigs in NYC and on faculty in San Francisco. ☆ Bri (talk) 16:17, 11 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete Considering the sources in the article and elsewhere, I'm not convinced that Becker is notable by the most relevant standards, WP:NCREATIVE (since engaged in multiple arts) and WP:GNG. If things change, I'd be be happy to reconsider. gidonb (talk) 03:03, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Drama-Logue Award that she has won. gidonb (talk) 03:26, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete this is why I don't like articles about actors. I am not convinced that its worth keeping this article given the fact that the references are inadmissible. I have stuck my initial vote above. Dysklyver  15:21, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment The editor above has !voted their own article for deletion. Can we get a WP:SNOW close? ☆ Bri (talk) 16:17, 11 October 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.