Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sarah Desjardins


 * 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. joe deckertalk 00:53, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Sarah Desjardins

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Lack of notability, quite a few references but not specifically about the subject Benboy00 (talk) 23:46, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 01:29, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 01:29, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 01:29, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * This is referenced entirely to the self-published production websites of the shows she was in, which is not the kind of sourcing it takes to get an actress into Wikipedia — Reliable sourcing means media coverage in magazines or newspapers or books, which are independent of her. And an actress does not get an automatic inclusion freebie just because she can be verified as existing, either — she gets included when you can make and source a credible claim to passing WP:NACTOR. Delete, without prejudice against recreation in the future if and when she can be substanced and sourced better than this. Bearcat (talk) 01:42, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete as nothing better for WP:GNG or WP:ENTERTAINER, only a few works and nothing for the convincing notability. SwisterTwister   talk  04:27, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep as passing, IMHO, WP:NACTOR. I'm surprised that Romeo Killer, a made for TV movie, doesn't have its own article. Bearian (talk) 11:35, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I feel like being three credits above "Town Person #3" is not a huge acheivement in a made for TV movie, and doesn't count as a significant role (does that movie even count as a notable film?) Benboy00 (talk) 00:27, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
 * A person doesn't pass NACTOR just because one editor asserts that she passes NACTOR — she passes NACTOR when reliable source coverage is present in the article to demonstrate an NACTOR pass. Bearcat (talk) 23:32, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, &mdash; Music1201  talk  02:07, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment If there are no secondary or tertiary sources at all specifically referencing the subject, then it's a clear delete. Otherwise keep and refactor using proper sources. My main concern in these cases are potential BLP issues which arise when relying too much on primary sources, as well as the possibility that when no reliable sources are available, the article may be a product of a publicist or agent. Laval (talk) 02:03, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete – the barest passing mentions in Variety and the LA Times; nothing in THR or EW. Definitely fails WP:NACTOR. Note to participants: Being a staple supporting player in Lifetime-type TV movies does not guarantee "notability" at all, believe me. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:58, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete - Searches did not turn up enough to show that they pass WP:GNG, and they simply don't have enough significant roles in notable productions to pass WP:NACTOR.  Onel 5969  TT me 13:43, 18 May 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.