Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maeve Alexander


 * 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   no consensus. Neither side has really fully convinced the other, and both sides' arguments have merit from a policy perspective. Since we've already re-listed once, I'm calling this one as No Consensus; if in six months or so there's been no significant change, and those recommending deletion still feel this doesn't meet WP:ACTOR or WP:GNG, a new nomination would be reasonable.. Qwyrxian (talk) 10:23, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Maeve Alexander

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Not convinced this actress passes WP:NACTOR. Only point 1 is relevant here, "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." A long career but the parts do not appear to be "significant" and press coverage of the WP:GNG-passing kind seems to be lacking. TheGrappler (talk) 01:51, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Note that in searching for sources it may be necessary to search for Maev Alexander. (If this is deleted, someone will need to delete that redirect). Ryan Vesey 02:01, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
 * This does give better quality results than "Maeve". But I am struggling to find anything on either search that would be citeworthy. TheGrappler (talk) 02:11, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 03:08, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Suggest speedy withdraw The mind boggles as to how you didn't pick up any sources in google books or why you'd think somebody with that many TV and stage roles wouldn't somehow meet notability requirements. Not to mention why an editor of my standard would start such articles if they weren't notable... ♦ Dr. Blofeld  10:46, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Not at all a criticism of your standard, I was just surprised when I came across this article how - despite a long career and lots of ghits - very little substantive information seemed to be available. My first reaction was that she was probably notable and the article (in the version I saw it) underdeveloped, but the more I searched for sources the more surprised I was at how little I found. I came across lots of passing mentions in books or appearances in cast listings, but almost nothing of substance. There's nothing in WP:NACTOR that dictates that someone with a long list of TV and stage roles is automatically notable: that's just an indication of them being a professional entertainer, which clearly does not suffice for notability. Since she does not have a large fanbase or a unique contribution to entertainment, the requirement is for "significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions". Most of the TV roles are small, single episode and/or minor roles. It is harder to judge the recurring roles of old shows, but our article on The Gentle Touch makes no mention of "WPC Sandra Williams" as a major character, nor was her recurring character in Holding the Fort one of the leading ones. So clearly in these cases we are looking at background characters - without further sources is difficult to know whether these are "significant" roles or not. The stage roles are clearly bigger parts, but for the stage performance to be "notable" secondary sources become more important. A performance at the Dublin Festival is unlikely to be notable, a role in The Mousetrap at the St Martin's Theatre sounds more promising but one would hope to see some sort of substantive press coverage to affirm the noteworthiness of her part there.


 * It is entirely possible to have a long, low-key career without crossing WP:GNG. The article's current state is vastly improved, but most of its length comes from expanding cast listings in prose, and adding details about personal life. Where is the "meat"? The most substantive source is an approving mention in a TV review from 1973, albeit for a role in which her screen-time was "occasional" with "long and arid intervals between her appearance". And there are apparently a couple of reviews in the specialist theatrical press - although I am not convinced this suffices for notability, since it is also possible to find press reviews that laud the performance of repertory actors, but we generally don't consider them notable. For such a long career one would expect to see more substantive sources and more substantial coverage if the notability criteria are met. I still think this case is at least closer to the threshold than you acknowledge, and it is certainly not slam-dunk notable. My nominating comment was measured - I only said that the notability is unconvincing, and gave reasons (all of which still stand), without claiming that the article was clearly non-notable. TheGrappler (talk) 12:37, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree, but you'll find that this is the case for over 75% of actors. Many of them lack "extensive coverage" and google book sources usually just pick up credits or brief mentions in other biographies etc. Enzo Petito for instance is typical of this. Alexander does actually have a few biographical entries in who's who in theatre type books though. You'll find that most actors aren't "slam dunk notable", especially older actors who made many appearances but in low key roles, but it is possible to compile something highly useful providing there are some sources to support an article. Trust me on this that the majority of actor articles or potential actor articles are of similar notability to Maeve and Enzo Petito where most of the content would be derived from expanded prose of roles and lack major coverage in books. You could argue that all of them fail notability requirements but you'll find they are generally accepted on wikipedia. ♦ Dr. Blofeld  13:39, 7 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the considered reply. It isn't really "extensive coverage" like a published (auto)biography or a string of magazine articles, that I was looking for; a couple of examples of "substantive coverage" would have done me fine (e.g. if I had found an interview in a newspaper, some reviews of a film or TV show in which she was involved as a "significant" part and which devoted a few lines to her performance). But everything I found was very fragmentary, often nothing more than her name in a cast list, and irritatingly the instances where details popped up were ones that did not confer notability (things like marriage/friendships/previous flatshare, fall in this category). I didn't unearth the Spectator review, which is the most substantive source at the moment, but if WP:NACTOR is taken literally, it's questionable whether that counts as a "significant" role. I'm not hellbent campaigning for the article to go, there are lots of people who got a wikipedia article for far less! But I wanted to see where consensus fell on an article like this, for which sources are numerous but scanty, and which didn't seem likely (even with more sources included) to be an obvious candidate to pass WP:NACTOR. In fact the way I read WP:NACTOR (which is perhaps too literal) I'm still not convinced it does, although your judgment about consensus on interpretation may well be correct. If this is the kind of article that is routinely kept at AFD then perhaps "significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions" needs a rewrite to reflect current consensus, or at least some clarification on (e.g. what counts as "significant" - are minor characters ok if they are speaking roles, for instance? And does "notable" mean "notable enough to mention" or "notable enough to deserve an article? - this makes a big difference for stagings of plays, very few of which are article-worthy in their own right). TheGrappler (talk) 23:49, 7 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment I note that both The Independent and the Birmingham Post list Ms Alexander among the notable birthdays for February 3rd each year (along with Kenneth Anger, Paul Auster, Val Doonican, to get even deeper into trivia). AllyD (talk) 19:12, 7 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep per Dr. Blofeld and AllyD. Specifically, we must note that WP:GNG was created to ensure that Wikipedia did not decide who is notable and who was not notable.  GNG is meant to make sure that wikipedians look to external sources to see if they have decided someone is notable.  In this case, The Independent, a national newspaper, has stated that Maev Alexander is notable.  Wikipedia must defer to the paper and say that she does meet our guidelines. Ryan Vesey 21:29, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
 * It's interesting they do that, as even if a piece of trivia it suggests Alexander is more notable than the sources suggest. But listing someone's birthday is hardly the "significant coverage" the GNG demands, so I don't think the actual wording of the GNG supports your interpretation of it. (In general I'm not convinced the idea of outsourcing the definition of "notable" works so neatly, because the "depth of coverage and quality of the sources" clause comes into play. For example there are often enough secondary sources - many column inches -  to write well-sourced articles on many local businesspeople, amateur or repertory theatre actors, semi-pro or amateur sportspeople, district-level politicians, but we generally hold them non-notable. We essentially declare that extensive coverage in the local press is not sufficient "depth of coverage and quality of the sources" but this judgment is partly driven by the desire to exclude people who don't "smell" notable. There are certainly biographies that are treated as clear-cut deletions on notability grounds despite having far more substantive sources available than this one does.) TheGrappler (talk) 23:49, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
 * You referenced my next point in your comment. We specifically exclude coverage that is only local.  That's why I mentioned The Independent and not the Birmingham Post.  In this case, a national paper stated that she is notable. Ryan Vesey 03:11, 8 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Mr. Stradivarius  (have a chat) 14:11, 14 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Probable delete Doesn't meet WP:GNG as Google/Google News/Google Books searches don't return any in-depth coverage. I'm not sure that she meets WP:NACTOR, because while she's been in some notable TV shows most of her roles were small: IMDb says she was in 1 episode of BBC soap Doctors, 3 episodes of The Gentle Touch, 1 episode of the New Avengers.  She may have had a bigger role in Sutherland's Law but that article doesn't establish the show's notability (there's 1 ref to IMDb which isn't a reliable source, and one to a fansite on Archive.org) and IMDb suggests she was only in 1 episode of it.  If people can indicate what her "significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions" were, then that might establish notability. --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:49, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - An early mention is from Washington Post May 10, 1990, where an "Alexandria Maeve" is mentioned in a string of names of people in the play. Maybe she used a different form of her name back then. The next mention is ten years later, "ON THIS DAY Birthdays: Painter Gillian Ayres, 70; actress Maev Alexander, 52; Irish singer Val Doonican, 71;" Birmingham Post February 3, 2000. This is odd because they would only note her birthday if she had some fame. Yet, I didn't find any news articles on her before that date. it is possible there are write ups on her that are not online. She's then mentioned in Daily Post September 12, 2003 and her name is mention in three other news articles. The newspapers continue to mention her birthday each year from 2000 on, but no real writes on her or her life. The hits in Google books seem only to mention her name, but not much more. Reviewing all the material, there isn't enough source material for a biography article to meet WP:GNG. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 03:43, 23 September 2012 (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.