Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tamara Duarte


 * 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. –  Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 19:22, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Tamara Duarte

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

WP:BLP of an actress, who has a potentially valid notability claim per WP:NACTOR but lacks the reliable sourcing needed to actually carry it. Her role in Degrassi was not actually significant enough to constitute an NACTOR pass in and of itself -- she appeared as a supporting character in eight episodes of a series that produced almost 400 episodes over the course of its run. So in reality, her notability would actually have to be parked entirely on Hard Rock Medical -- but no reliable source coverage about her performance on that show is being shown. The references here are one article in a community weekly newspaper in her own hometown, a Q&A in a men's magazine, Robin Leach's entertainment gossip blog and a directory entry on tv.com -- so none of this constitutes the depth or quality of sourcing required. An actress does not get an article just because it states a significant role per NACTOR #1 -- she gets an article when it reliably sources that she's gotten significant media coverage for that role, but this doesn't show anything of the sort. Bearcat (talk) 16:54, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 16:55, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 16:55, 4 April 2017 (UTC)


 *  Keep (or redirect) - Duarte has worked in a production role in Verona, and has performed in Hard Rock Medical, Degrassi: The Next Generation, Haven, Longmire, Being Erica, Against The Wall and Warehouse 13. If the article cannot be kept, it should, at a minimum, be redirected to one of her latest, or most prominent roles. --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:15, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
 * A person in the film industry — producer, actor, film crew, doesn't matter — is not automatically entitled to an article just because her work exists. She must be the subject of reliable source coverage about her work before her work gets her a Wikipedia article. Bearcat (talk) 17:52, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
 *  Reply - There are multiple in-depth reliable sources in the article. --Jax 0677 (talk) 18:06, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
 * No, there aren't. My nomination statement already explained why exactly zero of the sources in the article count for anything. Bearcat (talk) 22:26, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:17, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
 *  Reply - I disagree, but OK. We will leave it to the populous to decide. --Jax 0677 (talk) 13:12, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Our reliable sourcing standards do not accept every possible type of source as equally valid. Blogs and directories do not count as reliable sources at all — while Q&A interviews and community weekly newspapers cannot carry passage of WP:GNG by themselves, but are acceptable only as supplementary referencing for stray facts after the person has already been major-market-dailied and CBCed and Macleansed over GNG. You can "disagree" all you like, but Wikipedia has objective standards for what counts as a reliable source and what doesn't, and the sources you used here just aren't satisfying them. Bearcat (talk) 14:30, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:58, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete, but open to revisit. Not enough citations from press yet. Knox490 (talk) 04:17, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete I agree with Bearcat.  Subject lacks sufficient coverage of independent reliable sources  reliable sourcing  Cllgbksr (talk) 17:46, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. Bearcat wrote: "Our reliable sourcing standards do not accept every possible type of source as equally valid. Blogs and directories do not count as reliable sources at all — while Q&A interviews and community weekly newspapers cannot carry passage of WP:GNG by themselves, but are acceptable only as supplementary referencing for stray facts after the person has already been major-market-dailied and CBCed and Macleansed over GNG. You can "disagree" all you like, but Wikipedia has objective standards for what counts as a reliable source and what doesn't, and the sources you used here just aren't satisfying them". I agree that not all citations are created equal.  In addition, standards should be as objective as possible.  I do think, however, that in developing countries where they do not have a robust press that this creates problems so people deserving of an article are not covered, Dean Esmay (talk) 02:37, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete – I meant to work up a draft on Duarte, but never got around to it. But she doesn't clear WP:NACTOR/WP:BASIC, at least not yet... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 05:50, 18 April 2017 (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.