Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shannon O'Hurley


 * 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. ✗ plicit  14:35, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Shannon O'Hurley

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

This article was BLPPRODded by me a few days ago (see my reasoning in history) and was contested because of the IMDB link (note that BLPPROD applies to articles with unreliable references too, and IMDB is not reliable per WP:IMDB) and sources were added. However, I don’t see how these sources prove notability to the actress since they are just passing mentions. If one contests the deletion, please supply reliable sources that do not mention her in passing per WP:N. Spinixster  (chat!)  12:29, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Television,  and Theatre.  Spinixster   (chat!)  12:29, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 12:32, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete: Well, most of her characters per Rotten Tomatoes are listed as "Unknown", meaning they weren't important enough to be named while on screen. That doesn't get you a wiki article unless you have some extensive media coverage that talks about your career. We don't, so this is still a !delete. Oaktree b (talk) 13:34, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:49, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep. (The BLP prod was not "contested", it was declined by me; the rubric is clear that it requires literally no sources to be present when placed.) A quick search on Proquest gave multiple hits with actual discussion of this actor's role in various stage plays, not just passing mentions, and I added a selection to the article, as well as the Rotten Tomatoes link which I believe is generally considered more reliable than IMDb. There are lots more Proquest hits. Espresso Addict (talk) 14:08, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
 * The problem is that just because the actress was in multiple stage plays does not mean she is notable. WP:NACTOR says that one is notable when [t]he person has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions. Are the roles significant? Are the plays notable? Is she mentioned significantly?
 * Also, note that per WP:RSP, Rotten Tomatoes is only reliable for critic ratings and news articles, and [t]here is consensus that Rotten Tomatoes should not be used for biographical information, as it is user-generated content along with a lack of oversight. Spinixster   (chat!)  14:56, 25 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete. As a theatre actor in three non-notable plays in the LA area from 1996 to 2000, she is not notable.  As a TV actor, not a single citation has been proposed with significant coverage of significant roles. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:23, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: California and Massachusetts.  WC  Quidditch   ☎   ✎  19:17, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails WP:NACTOR, no significant roles in her resume. --Mika1h (talk) 19:23, 26 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment: I found her on Encyclopedia.com to provide sources for some of the claims, but I still don't know that she passes NACTOR. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 21:15, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I would say no. The general consensus is that encyclopedias like these are tertiary sources and while it may be reliable, I wouldn't use them to prove notability (see also WP:TERTIARY, Identifying and using tertiary sources, etc). Quoted from this discussion at RSN: Bear in mind that just because something is in Encyclopedia.com doesn't mean that it is notable in Wikipedia terms. I would suggest using it only as a supplementary source articles for which notability is demonstrated through other sources. Spinixster   (chat!)  14:22, 1 November 2023 (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.