Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Madelaine Petsch


 * 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. I'm pretty sure that in a year's time this article will almost certainly exist. But at the moment the "Delete" voters have policy on their side as regarding NACTOR and the other relevant policies. If this genuinely was a notable actor, as the Delete voters point out, she would have far more than the very thin third party coverage that the article gives. Black Kite (talk) 23:29, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Madelaine Petsch

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Doesn't meet WP:NACTOR Domdeparis (talk) 18:00, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep Subject of article has received significant coverage and her show appears to be successful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaquestheripper (talk • contribs) 13:27, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete one significant role is not multiple which is needed.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:35, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep, meets WP:GNG as the subject received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, , , etc etc. I don't think this case constitutes WP:BLP1E as this is not about an event but about an artistic performance. I've also noticed that Madelaine Petsch receives monthly thousands pageviews which suggests it is a sought after topic with potential to development/improvements. Deletion would be in my opinion counterproductive. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 16:17, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:27, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:27, 22 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep per Vejvančický. There's enough significant coverage of her in independent reliable sources. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:29, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * It's funny I would have thought that this is the very epitome of WP:BLP1E which is why the criteria explicitly says multiple roles. I am nonplussed...Domdeparis (talk) 16:50, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I think you and Johnpacklambert do seem to have misunderstood something: a recurring role in a TV show is not an "event". Moreover, according to IMDb this is not her only screen role. WP:BLP1E simply does not apply. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:54, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * True for the event part but NACTOR clearly says "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." I don't think this means one role in multiple episodes of a single show. If what you are saying is how it should be understood then the notability guide should be changed to add that appearing in multiple episodes counts too. Domdeparis (talk) 17:20, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * But WP:BASIC trumps everything and she's got the coverage, from what I can see -- and from what Vejvančický has demonstrated. I don't see this Afd passing but we'll see! Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:25, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:34, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * It'll be interesting to see. Just out of curiosity do you know of any other similar AfDs for actors in series? Domdeparis (talk) 17:38, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Not off the top of my head but you could peruse the discussions, ongoing and removed, at deletion sorting pages for actors as well as television, if you've really got the time. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:42, 22 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete: as utterly non-notable actress. Quis separabit?  18:59, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Not to badger, but if she's utterly non-notable, why was she the subject of the Teen Vogue article and the MTV interview, listed above? I get that they aren't exactly journals of record, but at the same time, they don't count for anything, in your view? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:19, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry, Shawn in Montreal. I didn't mean to be uncharitable, I was just thoughtless. Maybe it's just TOOSOON. Quis separabit?  23:52, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh no, that's fine. I'm still okay with my !vote and a bit emboldened that the other person currently in the keep camp is an admin, who's well versed in policy. But the upside is if it is deleted, we're not losing much anyway. And if she does have lasting notability it'll be recreated in time, anyway. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:09, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 * That may be the case but even admin can make mistakes and sometimes have their articles prodded and/or deleted by other admin ;o) Domdeparis (talk) 12:27, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 * You are of course right Domdeparis. AfD discussions usually profit from examining different points of view. I believe that this topic has potential to be developed into a decent article, with some creativity. Your point is that she appeared in only one notable TV show which is not enough to be included on Wikipedia. Let's wait what others think. To me, it's not a matter of life or death and I can live with any result. Many people opposed my opinions in the past. It's normal. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 15:40, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep Has had significant coverage from multiple independent reliable sources and meets WP:GNG. Brojam (talk) 22:17, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 02:04, 1 March 2017 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete Fails WP:NACTOR - 13 episodes of one series is not "significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, ..." I don't find the other coverage to be significant or in-depth. MB 03:51, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete – WP:TOOSOON. This is pretty much the definition of an article that should have been created in Draftspace, and incubated for about a year, before even thinking of moving to mainspace. Also, as has been pointed out, is also a technical WP:NACTOR fail as only one significant role to date. Like I said – too soon... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:34, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep: Her current co-star role gets her past notability. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:42, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
 * How?! A short burst of coverage coinciding with the premiere of a new TV series does not demonstrate true notability, especially long-term notability... I appraise articles like this one with the following "thought exercise": if Riverdale is cancelled tomorrow and never airs another episode, and Petsch never gets another significant acting role during the next 3 years, would the current article still be notable in 2020? – The answer is a resounding "No!" That's why this is WP:TOOSOON – if Riverdale sees a second season, and Petsch is still generating significant coverage on her own in a year's time, then we can revisit this one in 2018 (despite it still being a technical WP:NACTOR fail even at that point...). But, as of March 2017, this one's a "delete". --IJBall (contribs • talk) 01:56, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
 * That's a good exercise but the show was just renewed for a second season. Brojam (talk) 22:59, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Which does nothing to improve her notability now, though it may contribute to her passing the threshold next year. Which further proves my original point – this should have been created in Draftspace and incubated for months to see if she gets enough coverage to pass WP:BASIC despite failing WP:NACTOR. Whether Riverdale is renewed or not, it is still WP:TOOSOON for this subject to get a standalone article... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 06:45, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Do Not Delete. If you don't think that the coverage is good enough for GNG then at the minimum this should be Redirected to Riverdale (2017 TV series) where she has a significant role, making her name a reasonable search term. duffbeerforme (talk) 22:56, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
 * The issue is that this article should be deleted, and then a redirect can be created after its deletion. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 01:50, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Nope, it doesn't work like that. Deletion is not necessary to create a redirect. duffbeerforme (talk) 03:24, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
 * In this case, it does – deletion removes the current article's page history, which should not be preserved. Then a "fresh" redirect with an empty page history can be created after deletion. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:29, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Deletion removes the current article's page history, which should be preserved. duffbeerforme (talk) 04:09, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi just out of curiosity why is it essentiel in your eyes to keep the page history? To avoid having to rewrite the article again when she does finally meet the criteria ? If that's the case the article creator has the possibility to copy it into their sandbox or onto their hard drive.  If there is a real problem and someone wishes to contest the deletion (which may not happen anyway) there is a Deletion review process that can allow the article to be temporarily undeleted so that non-admins can review the history. Domdeparis (talk) 10:00, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
 * You've touched on why histories should be kept. The real question that should be asked is why is IJBall so keen on deleting the history, and you the article, when there is a good alternative clearly available. duffbeerforme (talk) 03:18, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
 * To be perfectly honest I couldn't care less whether it is deleted and then recreated as a redirect or simply blanked and changed as a redirect. I nominated it because the subject does not meet the criteria WP:NACTOR as this is one show and not multiple shows (but that's debatable according to some editors). If I had thought that there would be no debate about the suitability of this article I would have boldly blanked it and created the redirect myself as per WP:ATD-R. I'm just trying to understand why you say it "should" be preserved. It would be useful to the admin that has to decide on the outcome of the discussion to have your views on the preference for this option rather than just stating that it exists. Merging and incubation are other options that exist do you have a view on those? (and my apologies for modifying your comment but it was not immediately clear and did not conform to the recommended format as per WP:AFDFORMAT but that's your choice I was just trying to be helpful) Domdeparis (talk) 09:57, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Since no one has given an actual reason to delete the history the history should not be deleted. On merging, doesn't seem to be anuthing really worth merging but if it was merged the history Must be preserved. On incubation, yep that's an option, once again preserving the history. On afdformat, I have not properly checked out the sources to form a properly developed stance on gng. As such I was merely commenting on the appropriate alternative and not making an actual !vote. duffbeerforme (talk) 02:57, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep She seems to be getting significant coverage in press sources. She has also landed a major role in a current television series. Dimadick (talk) 16:16, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, &mdash; Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 16:40, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep Per Dimadick. Calibrador (talk) 04:33, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. Rather than addressing each and every distraction raised above - this article fails WP:NACTOR. The sources listed in the article are not WP:RS, they are WP:TABLOID guff. Narky Blert (talk) 01:07, 19 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.