Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Molly Wright


 * 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. czar 14:56, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Molly Wright

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

She's been in all of 5 episodes of a TV show, and a school play. Fails WP:NACTOR. WP:TOOSOON Meters (talk) 01:38, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete as nothing at all for solid independent notability including for WP:ENTERTAINER. SwisterTwister   talk  05:36, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions.  SwisterTwister   talk  05:36, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.  SwisterTwister   talk  05:36, 14 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep I don't personally believe WP:ENTERTAINER is fair to impose that someone in the entertainment industry has to be in 'multiple' productions (which seems vague as no one really knows how many that is. Taken literally, 1 is a multiple of 0.5). WP:SPORTCRIT would deem a sports person notable if they had participated in just one major event and had multiple secondary sources. If the former had the same basic notability guideline as the latter, Wright would now be automatically deemed notable as she's participated in a major television show and has multiple (actually several doing a quick search) secondary sources to prove it which I will happily add to the article if necessary. Its likely Wright, literally at the beginning of her career, will go on to star in other shows so deleting the article wouldn't be constructive. I would like to go with WP:COMMONSENSE and keep this article. Peteb16 (talk) 08:58, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
 * That's why I said WP:TOOSOON. If she continues with her career she will become notable. If she does not continue her career she may never become notable. We don't know. Right now if appears that she does not qualify as notable under the general guideline or under the specific rules for entertainers. It's irrelevant whether you agree with the guidelines or whether other guidelines have a lower standard for notability. Meters (talk) 20:20, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
 * That last sentence came across very negatively towards me. No one's opinion is irrelevant here please don't be dismissive. If I'm understanding correctly, WP:TOOSOON could be applied if the article had been created before The A Word was broadcast. Now 4 of 6 episodes have been broadcast and Wright is one of the stars of all of the episodes so far and there is apparently significant coverage to verify that, then I believe she passes both WP:TOOSOON and WP:GNG. WP:ENTERTAINER (which we're only 'encouraged' to use) is the only one that contradicts this saying "significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions", whatever number is meant by 'multiple'; assuming it isn't 1. This is why I'm standing by the general guideline and WP:COMMONSENSE. There also shouldn't be different standards of notability from one profession to the other, Wikipedia is supposed to be neutral. Peteb16 (talk) 10:15, 16 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete Only one significant role, therefore WP:TOOSOON to meet guidelines, which is not uncommon for most young actors. So I say delete first then wait until she has more roles and we'll get this undeleted. Donnie Park (talk) 09:53, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails WP:NACTOR. WP:TOOSOON Meters – Davey 2010 Talk 23:52, 21 April 2016 (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.