Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ruth Kearney


 * 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   no consensus. Stifle (talk) 10:33, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Ruth Kearney

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Fails WP:ENT. Has had only minor roles in 5 4 films ( 2 1 of them a short s ), one of which hasn't aired yet. The only significant role has been in the TV series Primeval. This doesn't meet the first criteria of WP:ENT, "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." AussieLegend (talk) 23:28, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It appears that I made the mistake of not checking IMDB when I looked at her bio. One of the 2 short films that she was in was made when she was 12 and the actress was in her 40s so it wasn't this actress. See Talk:Ruth Kearney for more. --AussieLegend (talk) 16:12, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Disagree - by the same logic, Karen Gillan's entry should be deleted too. The only "significant" role she has had has been on Dr. Who. All her other listed roles have either been minor ("girl at bus station") or in productions which you'd be pressed to describe as "notable" (The Well). Or how about Janet Fielding? Again, outside of a single major role in Dr. Who, her career isn't that notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.145.241.28 (talk) 16:36, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:58, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
 * "Other stuff exists" is never a good argument in a deletion discussion. Maybe Karen Gillan should be deleted too. --AussieLegend (talk) 16:44, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
 * "Other stuff exists is never a good argument." I believe you have misread the article you cite. It notes "editors will inevitably point to similarities across the project as reasons to keep, delete, or create a particular article or policy. Sometimes these comparisons are invalid, and sometimes they are valid." Additionally, "the automatic dismissal of such a statement is just as lacking in rationale and thus the second user has provided no reason to delete the article." You suggest deleting the Ruth Kearney article based on her only having one notable role. However, that holds true for several of her co-stars who have their own articles, and for numerous Dr. Who past and present cast. "It would be ridiculous to consider deleting an article on Yoda or Mace Windu, for instance. If someone were, as part of their reasoning for keep, to say that every other main character in Star Wars has an article, this may well be a valid point. In this manner, using an "Other Stuff Exists" angle provides for consistency." Every other actor who is or was formerly a main cast member on Primeval has an individual page. Hence the consistency argument holds. As for Karen Gillan, yes, by your logic, her article also needs to be deleted. I disagree with that logic, but feel free to place a deletion notice on her article. I don't imagine it will take long for others to offer a differing opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.145.241.28 (talk) 23:37, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Let's look at the very first example in Other stuff exists, which applies directly to this discussion:
 * "The claim of "Other Stuff Exists" most often arises in deletion debates, where it is often used in a poor manner. Examples:
 * Keep There's an article on x, and this is just as famous as that. –LetsKeepIt! 04:04, 4 April 2004 (UTC)"
 * The section of Other stuff exists that you have referred to doesn't really apply here. I've already provided a rationale based on the notability guidelines, which say that the article shouldn't exist. Your only rationale for retention is that other similar articles exist. OSE addresses this - "So just pointing out that an article on a similar subject exists does not prove that the article in question should also exist; it is quite possible that the other article should also be deleted but nobody has noticed it and put it forward for AfD yet." This is something that I've also mentioned previously. As for her co-stars, the only one that has dubious notability is Ben Mansfield. Regarding consistency, you might care to note that it says "this may well be a valid point" (emphasis added). "May" does not mean "is". I've had a look at Karen Gillan and she doesn't suffer the notability issues that Ruth Kearney does. it was a poor example to use. She has had several roles and meets the general notability guidelines. --AussieLegend (talk) 00:51, 8 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Technically, if you slavishly follow WP:ENT, this stub must be deleted. Let's use a bit of common sense: if a supporting actor is on one hit TV show, that should be sufficient. Keep. Bearian (talk) 22:14, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * She doesn't just fail WP:ENT, she fails WP:GNG as well. These guidelines are put in place for a reason, not just to fill space. If we don't follow them, slavishly or otherwise, what's the point of having them? The guideline is specific, it says "significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." (emphasis added) One was clearly not enough for those who created this guideline. And let's get this in context, her appearances total 7 episodes. If she had been in the series from the start it might have been a different story. --AussieLegend (talk) 23:44, 8 February 2011 (UTC)


 * comment For WP:GNG, we need "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Looking for a couple of minutes I see (albeit in an unreliable blog) that an interview was recently published in SFX Magazine. Assuming this is verified, this would seem to be significant coverage in one reliable source that is independent of the subject. Any one verify this, and any other sources? Edgepedia (talk) 19:19, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * This verifies the interview is in the December 2010 edition: Preview online, you need the magazine for the article . Edgepedia (talk) 07:47, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * and another interview published by totalscifionline, a rather short interview with DigitalSpy
 * I think she would pass WP:GNG as well, assuming these are reliable sources. Bearian (talk) 17:06, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Keep. She's had a big enough role in a big enough TV show, whatever the guidelines state. We have enough sources for a stub that passes WP:V.--Michig (talk) 07:17, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Give her a chance. She's been in a new TV series just this month. Maybe some new fans will generate some hits. But I can't disagree on notability thus far. Not much there.  Nipson anomhmata   (Talk) 03:20, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * According to her bio, she's had six years of chances. She appeared in the last season of Primeval, which has now ended, so there's no more chances for her at the moment. --AussieLegend (talk) 08:01, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Till the next AfD.  Nipson anomhmata   (Talk)


 * NOTE There were three films listed in the article, all Canadian. They are almost certainly referring to an older Canadian actress of the same name. The Irish Kearney's CV lists only Gracie and Primeval along with live theatre.  Barsoomian (talk) 18:10, 14 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Since my nomination was based on her being in more productions than those in which she has actually appeared, perhaps I should withdraw this nomination and resumbmit based on her being even less notable than I thought. --AussieLegend (talk) 07:01, 15 February 2011 (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.