Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mica Shemper


 * 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. Eddie891 Talk Work 01:02, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Mica Shemper

 * – ( View AfD View log )

I believe it is way WP:TOOSOON for a biographical article on her. As of now WP:NACTOR isn’t satisfied and she doesn’t seem to possess in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources thus fails to WP: GNG also. A before search shows she is mentioned predominantly in passing. Celestina007 (talk) 00:27, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 00:27, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 00:27, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 00:27, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 00:27, 4 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Redirect to . Elliot321 (talk &#124; contribs) 00:37, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

I think it should be kept until there is more information about her I am actively researching her and making a rough copy in word. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Editiex (talk • contribs) 14:39, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Strong delete The rule for notability is multiple significant roles in notable productions. There is no sourcing, so this fails verifiability. As part of a ongoing TV show, we may be safe in saying her role is within a notable production. For the record I have watched Stranger Things Seasons 1-3 (in way to little time for overall health, but that is a different issue, I did take long to watch all three seasons than my wife, but that is also a different story). However there is no evidence that Shemper will have a role significant to the overall series, or that the role even in Season 4 will rise to the level of significance. Even if that were the case, the multiple significant prong means that no way is ever notable for their opening role. The one exception is if the rule becomes super tied into a cult classic, which is very rare, and even less likely when we are talking about a multi-episode TV show. The article admitting we know very little of the actress is a good reason why we should not have the article. At this point a redirect would not be justified, because there is not enough known of the character to justify it. The season is not yet released, so this is not a situation like Lois and Clark: The New Adventures of Superman and Elizabeth Barondes and Lois and Clark. Ms. Barondes was listed among the lead cast in the first two episodes, but then she never reappeared. Near the end of the next season when they brought her character back, it was with a different actress, and then in a later season when she would have been there under virtually any circumstances, they came up with a contrived reason to not have her there, and have a new relative fill in for the role of Lois' missing sister at the wedding.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:41, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete - the article itself says Not much is known about the child actress yet. which is basically an admission that this fails WP:GNG. With WP:NACTOR not being met either, there is no good reason to keep Spiderone  20:59, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete Absolutely no coverage available. Does not seem to even support a redirect as suggested above. Redoryxx (talk) 15:28, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and per everyone else. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 16:52, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete. Agree with everyone else, especially Spiderone. It is too soon and can be added at a later date if they deserve an article. Right now, it seems like a promo or puff piece. ThurstonMitchell (talk) 15:44, 9 January 2021 (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.