Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maggie Castle


 * 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. Seraphimblade Talk to me 15:42, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Maggie Castle

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Poorly referenced WP:BLP of an actress. As always, actors and actresses do not get an automatic free pass over WP:NACTOR just because the article lists roles -- she needs to be the subject of reliable source coverage about her performances in at least some of those roles, and preferably some by which we can actually verify some biographical details as well, before she actually satisfies a notability criterion. But of the five sources here, not even one of them is a reliable source at all: there's her IMDb profile, a tweet from her sister, a deadlinked primary source announcement of a DVD release, a deadlinked podcast and a non-notable PR blog. These are not acceptable sources for the purposes of getting an actress into an encyclopedia. Bearcat (talk) 06:51, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep - Very prolific Gemini Award-winner. One of the stars of Todd and the Book of Pure Evil, Arthur (TV series) and has had other significant roles in multiple films and TV shows, thus easily passing WP:NACTOR ("Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions.")--Oakshade (talk) 07:30, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Firstly, the article neither states nor sources anything about her winning a Gemini Award. And secondly, as I pointed out above, the notability test for an actress is not "has had roles", it is "has received enough reliable source coverage for the having of roles to pass WP:GNG". No number of roles exempts an actress from having to be properly sourced — it's the amount of media coverage she did or didn't get for having roles, not the number of roles in and of itself, that determines whether she passes NACTOR or not. One role can be enough if sufficient media coverage for it happens, and a hundred roles can be not enough if sufficient media coverage for them doesn't happen. Bearcat (talk) 08:00, 26 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep: the sourced info re Gemini award added by Oakshade appears to be enough for notability. Pam  D  15:08, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:43, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:43, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:43, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   10:14, 3 December 2017 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Weak delete. She's on the cusp of satisfying NACTOR, but I couldn't find any real media coverage (other than an interview or two). The Gemini was for an ensemble, not just her, so it's not enough. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:00, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:58, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. The sourcing is too superficial to pass WP:GNG.  Sandstein   07:49, 17 December 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.