Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pernille Broch


 * 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:58, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Pernille Broch

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable actress with all of one credit to her name (a recurring role on EastEnders). WP:TOOSOON. sixty nine  • speak up •  01:52, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment Many Eastenders actors have only one notable credit to their name. The most well-known is Adam Woodyatt who has played Ian Beale since the very first episode back in 1985. Eastenders is a prime time early evening soap, aired three times a week on BBC1. Monkeez (talk) 09:31, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment However, Adam Woodyatt has been in the business three decades and has an extensive filmography. Broch has nothing aside from the show. sixty nine   • speak up •  17:18, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment Adam Woodyatt doesn't have any films to his credit, in fact he doesn't even have an IMDB entry, whereas Pernille Broch does. His other TV roles were a couple of things he did as a child actor. I surmise that he has a Wikipedia entry because of the notability of Eastenders, which in turn makes him and Pernille Broch notable actors who are seen by millions of viewers every week on BBC1. Monkeez (talk) 21:06, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
 * "Doesn't even have an IMDb entry"? What do you call this, then? Also, put your signature at the end of your comments, not before. sixty nine   • speak up •  02:00, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions.  M assiveYR   ♠  06:02, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.  M assiveYR   ♠  06:02, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions.  M assiveYR   ♠  06:02, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades of Godric On leave 17:46, 26 October 2017 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Redirect to List of EastEnders characters (2017) as a plausible search term. At this early stage in the actor's career, it's safe to say that readers are looking up this person because of this role. I'm not seeing coverage to meet WP:GNG at this time.  gongshow  talk  07:24, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. No evidence of notability. One of the cited sources doesn't even mention her. The other one is about the character, not the actress, and anyway is nowhere near substantial enough coverage on its own. There doesn't seem to be much else either. The reasons given for keeping don't hold up. For example, actors don't inherit notability from the notability of the show where they appear, and comparing an actor who has been a star of the show for over 30 years with one who has just been in a few recent episodes isn't very meaningful. Breaking sticks (talk) 22:36, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 16:16, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:43, 3 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Redirect per Gongshow. Agree that it's likely the character, not the actor, that draws the clicks. Agricola44 (talk) 15:14, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete one role is not enough to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:08, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Redirect per Gongshow. The character hasn't been on Eastenders long enough for the actor to meet WP:ENT based only on that role, and no sign of WP:GNG. power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 19:59, 8 November 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.