Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Talyan Wright


 * 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. Spartaz Humbug! 21:38, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Talyan Wright

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Subject fails WP:NACTOR. To date her career has consisted of only minor parts. Her most notable role was as a minor recurring character in 5 episodes of Two and a Half Men.  Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 11:54, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete. Agree with nom, career so far fails NACTOR requirements for encyclopedia inclusion. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 12:51, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi all. I made this article. Sorry, if this might not meet the guidelines, but I don't yet see why not. I first thought to make it because I noticed she was one of the only recurring characters not to have her own page on the List of Two and a Half Men characters page. She is not listed, there, under the Minor Character heading. So I'm not sure it fails WP:NACTOR, because "significant" is somewhat subjective. I personally think a recurring role in a notable TV show, like this is "significant" and winning awards for her significant role in the short films Father and Cracked, qualify as multiple significant roles, it seems to me. True they are short films, but being lauded by as venerable and significant a festival as Woods Hole Film Festival, for example, makes them notable, in my view. Of course, I am still learning, as an editor, but these seemed to add up to multiple significant roles in notable productions, to me. Of course, I am always willing to listen to opposing viewpoints and will concede, if I feel I made a mistake. But so far, I am not convinced this doesn't meet the NACTOR. Also, I'd appreciate if someone could make more clear what "unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment" means, as that also seems subjective. I imagined multiple awards, by notable film festivals would qualify for that point, as well.--User:AntonTchekhov&#124; reply here  19:27, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * "Significant" usually means a main character, or a recurring character whose participation in a TV program went well beyond that of a recurring character. In this case, Wright's role was simply a recurring character in 5 episodes. Having a recurring role in a notable TV show does not constitute a significant role because notability is not inherited. The subject must stand on their own as a notable individual. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 19:54, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Ah ok, understood. But, for future articles, what is the cut off point of significance, and where is that defined, on WP? Also, what is the situation with awards from notable insitutions? Given these were awarded to Wright, specifically, wouldn't that make her notable, as an individual? She did play a major role in both short films. Are short films exempt from notability? If so, where is that stated on WP, so I know for the next article? Although I thought Wright was notable, I also don't want to make the mistake of creating articles for non-notables. I want to improve my editing skills, so I can avoid time-consuming deletion noms, in future.--User:AntonTchekhov&#124; reply here 21:22, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — UY Scuti Talk  21:09, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. — UY Scuti  Talk  21:09, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — UY Scuti  Talk  21:09, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — UY Scuti  Talk  21:09, 9 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment: Perhaps even if seen as weak on WP:ENT for works or WP:ANYBIO for awards, she might meet WP:BASIC through coverage. So, what sources speak about this youngster in a more-than-trivial manner?  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 22:25, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete for now and draft & userfy as this may be borderline keep but we can delete for now until a better article can be made. SwisterTwister   talk  06:44, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete as per nom and above editors; and I agree with to Userfy, since this might be a case of WP:TOOSOON, and because  poses a valid, if unanswered question. Currently does not meet WP:NACTOR.  Onel 5969  TT me 13:48, 17 November 2015 (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.