Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sonequa Martin-Green


 * 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   keep. L Faraone  02:11, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Sonequa Martin-Green

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This subject fails WP:GNG and WP:BASIC for lack of substantial coverage by reliable sources. She also fails WP:NACTOR as to her roles' significance within their productions: she has had no roles that make her encyclopedically notable. Plus, there's nothing reliable (save Twitter?) to lend actual biographical details. JFHJr (㊟) 01:47, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:25, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:25, 25 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep. The actress has met WP:NACTOR "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." These roles include roles on Army Wives, The Good Wife, The Walking Dead and Once Upon a Time. Extra sources that can be included include 'Walking Dead' actress Sonequa Martin-Green joins 'Once Upon a Time' cast in mystery role, 'Walking Dead' Actress Sonequa Martin-Green Is Headed To 'Once Upon A Time'. Silver Buizel (talk) 06:38, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * See WP:BLOGS as to why neither of those "sources" meets WP:BLP standards. JFHJr (㊟) 12:35, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: I've removed two sources this editor has offered on the article space for blatant WP:SYNTH/WP:OR: the sources do not support what that editor has written. JFHJr (㊟) 12:39, 1 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep. She's most definitely notable. Her list of accomplishments include roles in major internationally syndicated shows. —♦♦ AMBER  (ЯʘCK)  09:19, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Which of her roles are substantial or significant? Appearing in minor roles in major shows is not notable. JFHJr (㊟) 19:20, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment. She's actually had significant recurring roles on most of the television programs she's acted on. I wouldn't simply write them off as minor.

Army Wives - Kanessa Jones (3 Episodes) The Good Wife - Courtney Wells (8 Episodes) NYC 22 - Michelle Terry (5 Episodes) The Walking Dead - Sasha (5 Episodes so far) Once Upon a Time - Tamara (3 Episodes so far) Silver Buizel (talk) 20:35, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. She is in The Walking Dead and most of the actors on that show have an article. I don't think this article should be deleted.Marty2Hotty (talk) 08:53, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
 * See WP:OTHERCRAP. This discussion is about the subject's notability, not what's in other articles. JFHJr (㊟) 12:34, 1 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep Obviously she meets WP:NACTOR. This AfD smacks of WP:IDONTLIKEIT --93.209.88.115 (talk) 15:29, 1 April 2013 (UTC) — 93.209.88.115 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Delete - She appears to be an up and coming actor, so no prejudice to recreation in the future as her career develops. However, at this point, she has basically got supporting parts in multiple TV series, but without any significant coverage in independent reliable sources.  The ones in the article are insufficient.  Coverage is insubstantial, with the best of it being coverage of a the casting decision for Once Upon a Time.  These are simply short annoucnements of the casting.  My own search for significant coverage turned up nothing.  I'm prepared to change my mind if those asserting obvious notability can provide sources to back up the claim.  -- Whpq (talk) 16:34, 1 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete - I'm on the fence, because I do think Ms. Martin-Green is noteworthy enough to merit an article (there are, arguably, several persons who have less credentials who have WP articles). However, there doesn't appear to be enough sources outside of blogs and IMDB to satisfy WP:V standards. Kkbay (talk) 20:21, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I sympathize. I think it's probably just a little WP:TOOSOON. I sincerely hope her career flourishes. This article would be acceptable in a WP:DRAFT state until reliable sources show she's notable. Keep proponents are advised to do draft, but only within expected parameters. JFHJr (㊟) 02:16, 3 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete These are not significant roles as per the criteria, I think, and I can't locate significant coverage of Martin-Green. Hekerui (talk) 20:48, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
 * She was upgraded to a series regular for season 4 of The Walking Dead --93.209.74.190 (talk) 00:45, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. She's been in multiple films. She has been a recurring character on mutliple TV series. And now she's been promoted to the regular cast of the top-rated scripted show on television (The Walking Dead) for its upcoming season: http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/live-feed/walking-dead-season-4-spoilers-tyreese-beth-sasha-432869 . If we examine the text of some of the rationales cited in support of deletion, I don't think the policies support deletion in this case. In fact, some of those policies actually support inclusion. For instance, WP:OTHERCRAP most definitely does not exclude which other articles exist from the discussion. In fact, that essay (not a policy) explicitly states that the comparisons to other existing articles "may form part of a cogent argument". But it states that such comparisons should not alone be the basis for an AfD discussion. Comparisons are definitely relevant in this case, but some elements of WP:NACTOR are subjective. Defining what is a "significant role" can be aided by looking at the roles of other actors who have articles. And I think recurring in a multiple episode arc of a TV series is significant. I watch NYC 22. Sonequa Martin-Green was integral to many episodes and the main story arc of one of the lead characters. WP:BASIC was cited in favor of deletion, but the text of the actual policy strongly favors keeping the article. Breaking down by elements. (1) There are multiple sources (12 including references and links). (2) All but one (the Twitter post) are secondary. (3) They are reliable, with several coming from notable entertainment news or general news sources (The Hollywood Reporter, The Huffington Post, TV Guide via the Seattle Post-Intelligencer site), Digital Spy, TV Line, etc.). (4) The reference are intellectually independent rather than just mirrors on different sites. (5) With the exception of the Twitter post, all the sources are apparently independent (not published by people other than Martin-Green or a concerning conflict of interest). And I know some might find page views entirely irrelevant, I think it's worth mentioning as just one element in a detailed analysis. The Sonequa Martin-Green article has over 41,000 page view over the last month.  --JamesAM (talk) 01:18, 4 April 2013 (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.