Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paige Peterson (actress)


 * 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.  Sandstein  10:15, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Paige Peterson (actress)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Consider this a "test case"... Proposing deletion due to failing WP:NACTOR. While she has a decent resume, her only "significant" role was probably the one season on Hang Time. Oh, and she also posed for Maxim (but is not at their website). And while the article has sources, they are only local coverage (Lawrence Journal-World) and tabloid (TMZ) coverage. Only gets the most passing mentions in Variety (barely), but is not mentioned at The Hollywood Reporter, Entertainment Weekly, etc. Bottom line is that Peterson is not "notable" enough for inclusion in an encyclopedia. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:28, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:30, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:30, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:30, 20 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete as, all in all, this is questionable for WP:ENTERTAINER, nothing solidly convincing. SwisterTwister   talk  06:30, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment: I've added some of her roles, but the main reason I'm posting is to say that I've removed the TMZ claim. TMZ isn't a RS on here (to say the least) and any legal claims should be left off unless there's a ton of coverage to justify inclusion. Offhand she looks to have had some minor roles, but nothing really major. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  09:39, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete as per -- my sweeps didn't result in much in my dust bin.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:22, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:11, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:11, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:11, 25 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment I have no opinion on the notability of the subject. I'm curious why this was placed in the American football deletion sorting group.  I see no reference to American football.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:35, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, I didn't do that... But I think it's because Peterson has also done some Lingerie football stuff. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:42, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep as prominent role in Hang Time for a year, as well as other cinema roles means there should be RS coverage, which I am still looking for. The sources in the article should count partially.Atlantic306 (talk) 23:13, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment – I have yet to see you vote anything by keep at AfD, and a lot of it appears to relate your misunderstanding of WP:NACTOR which clearly states: "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." (which Peterson clearly does not have). You would benefit by paying attention to the arguments other voters make, as you seem to be relatively new to this... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:25, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment I've voted delete four times this week, you don't seem to know that WP:NACTOR are guidelines overruled by RS as stated at WP: BASIC and the following paragraph additional criteria.Atlantic306 (talk) 23:33, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
 * WP:BASIC: "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability..." Peterson still fails. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 01:18, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, &mdash; Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 03:28, 28 February 2016 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:43, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete Don't know why this is under sportspeople, but the important thing is that she doesn't have the significant coverage required to meet WP:GNG. Plus, all of the article's sources are from the local paper.Mdtemp (talk) 08:32, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment Local coverage doesn't negate notability and isn't an argument for AfD. All of someone's coverage might be local and they would still be notable depending on the circumstances. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 23:11, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * See above: all the local coverage is from the same source – there is a lack of multiple independent (local) sources coverage in this case. Also, I'm not sure the local coverage counts for much in this instance, as they're all of a "hometown girl makes it in Hollywood" variety, which is paired with a decided lack of coverage in Hollywood trade publications, etc. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:28, 15 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete local references for local figure with no significant roles.  DGG ( talk ) 01:02, 17 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete No significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. Vanamonde93 (talk) 03:41, 17 March 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.