Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tilly Keeper


 * 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 no consensus. &mdash; Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 04:26, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Tilly Keeper

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

PROD was removed for the 3rd time so I have to now AfD it but it will be removed as well...but anyways, this is an actor that completely fails WP:NACTOR, only 13 episodes of a day time soap, some have not even aired..no other previous work bar as an extra on an episode of another show, no notability before her acting career, no awards, or other meaningful achievements, the article may look well sourced but it does not mean the actor is notable... Stemoc 01:55, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment - Once a PROD is removed, it cannot be replaced. If a PROD was removed three times, then it was placed two times too many. PROD is for uncontested deletion, if it's removed, then it is, by definition, not an uncontested deletion. - Aoidh (talk) 02:47, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, our rule on that is silly, has been silly for a long time now..if a PROD is removed without a valid reason, is it contested? or just plain vandalism?-- Stemoc 02:59, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Hardly silly, PROD is only used when it's uncontested, that's what it's for. For everything else, there's AfD. If you think the scope of PROD should be changed, then you're more than welcome to start an RfC at Wikipedia talk:Proposed deletion, but what you used PROD for here is and has always been outside of the scope of its purpose. More to the point, the PROD you restored was not without explanation. You may not think it's a good reason, but that's irrelevant; it was contested, thus you cannot re-PROD the article. - Aoidh (talk) 04:51, 13 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep. EastEnders is not a "daytime soap" and is in fact one of the most successful programs in TV history, and her role appears to be a significant one, now back in the show for the fourth time as a regular character. She has received extensive coverage (see the "news" results from the "Find sources" link above) and from all appearances easily passes WP:GNG. Also, I endorse what Aoidh has written above about the repeated use of proposed deletion notices.. --Arxiloxos (talk) 02:58, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
 * She may become 'notable' in the future, I do not deny that, but she is not-notable now...I'm sorry but wikipedia has never allowed actors getting their own wikipedia page who have just started acting regardless of the role that have got...as of now, she barely has any role..being in the news does not really make one notable..-- Stemoc 03:02, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Weak delete – Ostensibly fails WP:NACTOR as EastEnders is her only notable role so far (NACTOR requires a presence in multiple popular shows). There is some coverage on her personally, rather than the character she's playing, but it's rather thin and mostly limited to sources of questionable value for notability (local news etc), so not convinced it passes WP:GNG. Might be a case of WP:TOOSOON, but willing to change my mind if anyone finds better coverage. — Nizolan  (talk) 05:03, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Redirect to List_of_EastEnders_characters_(2001) until WP:TOOSOON ceases to apply. Roughly agree with User:Nizolan's reasoning (and I couldn't find anything significant that wasn't directly related to coverage of her assumption of the EastEnders role). ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 07:56, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep - Enough here to claim notability. DaltonCastle (talk) 00:07, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep - Upcoming actress who - if she doesn't now - will very soon meet the notability criteria. CDRL102 (talk) 21:44, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep - As an 18 year old actress, she's more noteable than say actors that are a few years younger in soaps or other television shows. Most the information is from news sources like The Daily Mail, Digital Spy, The Mirror etc. - they are reliable sources. Plus, again due to her age, any storylines that she gets down the line will bring the attention to the actress. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grangehilllover (talk • contribs)
 * Redirect to List_of_EastEnders_characters_(2001) - EE's only been her major role so far and I'd imagine she probably wasn't remembered for the other role, Personally I think it's all abit TOOSOON so personally think redirect is best until she perhaps stars in more shows/films and more sources become available. – Davey 2010 Talk 23:23, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete - Not entirely sure why I went with redirect seeing as it's the actual BLP & not the character..... Seems kinda pointless, Anyway as per below, above, left and right there's no evidence of notability, fails TOOSOON, NACTOR and last but by no means least GNG. – Davey 2010 Talk 01:42, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment: Davey2010, my thought is that in a case like this where the actor is known for one role and won't pass notability requirements for an individual article but still has some likelihood of being searched for, that it's more useful to send searchers to a section for that role (which can integrate quarter of a sentence regarding the actor's past) if possible. ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 06:30, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete - Article fails the criteria of both WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. Despite the keep arguments above, being "more notable than someone else" and "will be notable soon" are not compelling reasons to keep an article on Wikipedia. The article's subject does not meet any criteria of WP:NACTOR, which requires significant roles in multiple films or programs, and the subject does not meet that criteria. The article's subject also fails to meet WP:GNG, especially when viewed through the lens of WP:AUD. Most of the independent sources discuss the character and the show the character is on, as opposed to the actress portraying the character. - Aoidh (talk) 11:47, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vipinhari  &#124;&#124;  talk  13:44, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Strong keep: For the reasons noted by other users. --Unframboise (talk) 21:14, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Which reasons? Comments adding nothing but a statement of support to a prior comment add little to the discussion. Is it that she "might soon" meet the notability criteria? Or that she's "more notable" than other people might be? - Aoidh (talk) 06:05, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Weak keep - She clearly passes WP:GNG, even though she clearly fails WP:ENT, so on balance I would lean slightly towards a keep. anemone  projectors  21:29, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete - actually having read some of the other comments, I realise she fails WP:GNG as the sources are discussing the character rather than the actress. If she passes GNG and ENT in the future, the article can be written then. anemone  projectors  09:47, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Weak delete as per Aoidh and Nizolan; most of the coverage indeed seems to be focused on the character she portrays, rather than her as a person. Whether she will be notable in the future is just not enough to keep an article. GABHello! 23:59, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete, just not notable enough as an actress; can be mentioned in the TV series article as to portrayal of the character (the fourth one to do so). Kierzek (talk) 01:33, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Redirect to EastEnders for now as the article is still questionable for solid independent notability, had the character work been longer, I would've considered keeping. Not enough to convince me for deleting but perhaps not for keeping either. SwisterTwister   talk  22:39, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, &mdash; Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 11:07, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:34, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:34, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:34, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 00:53, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep - This is an article of an actress in a highly successful TV programme both in its home country and overseas. The actress is currently a regular one and will most likely have additional roles should her main one end.  How can she not be notable?  Cexycy (talk) 00:25, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Because she doesn't meet any of the notability criteria. "Most likely will" be notable in the future does not create notability for her now, and there are no reliable sources that support this being a standalone article. You ask how can she not be notable, but you haven't said how she could be. What notability criteria does she meet? She doesn't meet WP:NACTOR, so what makes her notable, exactly?' - Aoidh (talk) 01:51, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
 * She is connected with a very highly popular TV show. How this that not notable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cexycy (talk • contribs)
 * The show is popular, the character is popular, the people who played her character before became popular, she is not..I think its a basic idea people who write articles on this are not getting...she may become popular and notable, but not now..we only add biogrpahies of people once they become popular, not before it,,, we are not a crystal ball-- Stemoc 05:14, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
 * There's also the fact that notability is not inherited. Just because she's involved with something notable does not mean she herself is automatically notable. - Aoidh (talk) 13:12, 14 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete – thus far, she has only had a significant role in one show (EastEnders). As notable as that show is, having only one substantial role in one's career thus far is not enough notability for an actor for Wikipedia (the other credit is a single episode guest actor, which counts for very little in notability terms). If she follows the usual career trajectory for someone in her position, she'll likely meet the criteria sooner or later, but as of right now it is WP:TOOSOON. SJK (talk) 07:39, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Redirect to the character if WP:TOOSOON, same as previous actress Brittany Papple, keeping useful edit history. But possibly keep, for media coverage and WP:NACTOR #2, "large fan base". In any case, certainly not "delete". -- IamNotU (talk) 18:46, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Are there any sources that show that she has a large fan base? - Aoidh (talk) 21:28, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * It depends how you look at it, I suppose, and how you define "fan". One should not underestimate the importance of EastEnders to British culture! It seems there are plenty of sources covering her already. Whether that does or doesn't translate as "notability" for her, is kind of a judgement call. If an actor has a significant role in a hugely popular show, an argument that they don't inherit any notability from that is a bit dubious. I guess one way to look at it is, if they wrote her out of the show tomorrow, and she never worked in the business again, would she be considered to have been a notable actress? Probably not. But if she continues in the role for a while, probably so. Where that threshold is, is somewhat arbitrary. On the other hand, it's not unlikely that quite a large number of people might want to look up information about her, and think it's strange that Wikipedia doesn't have any. I don't have a strong opinion about it, other than to not do a simple delete right now. If the article isn't a keeper at the moment, there's certainly enough notability to redirect and retain the history for future use. -- IamNotU (talk) 23:14, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * It's not arbitrary at all; you're arguing that they might soon become notable, not that they are now. Notability is not established by what might happen at some point, nor is notability inherited from some other article's notability, there's nothing dubious about that, that's just a fact on how notability works on Wikipedia. There's nothing arbitrary about the relevant notability guidelines; this individual does not meet any of them. None at all. You're saying that there are plenty of sources covering her, but none of them muster the notability required to meet WP:GNG. Sources about a character that mention the actress in passing are not sufficient. You claimed that she meets WP:NACTOR #2, so again, do you have any sources backing up that claim? If she meets a notability criteria in any way I'd rather that be known than the article deleted because we don't have the full picture, and while I don't think she does meet WP:NACTOR #2, maybe you're aware of some sources that I haven't come across. - Aoidh (talk) 23:27, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Please don't put words in my mouth. I didn't make any "claims" or "arguments" to keep the article, did I? I !voted to blank and redirect. But if the consensus somehow goes towards "keep", due to the popularity of the show, I'm not interested in trying to block it. Like it or not, an actor receives a certain amount of notability, for playing a significant role in a notable show. If Tilly Keeper instead of playing the fourth incarnation of Louise Mitchell for thirteen episodes, had played the thirteeth incarnation of The Doctor for four episodes, you can be sure she'd have a Wikipedia article, no matter what the guidelines say. -- IamNotU (talk) 03:20, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I didn't put any words in your mouth, you said "But possibly keep, for media coverage and WP:NACTOR #2" and I asked if you had anything to back up that claim, not as an accusation but because if it does meet WP:NACTOR #2 and nobody has considered it, that needs to be known. Arguing that notability is inherited, that she might soon become notable, and that other actors have articles are not compelling reasons to use in deletion discussions because they ignore the most important fact: this article does not meet any notability standard. You can argue all day that "an actor receives a certain amount of notability, for playing a significant role in a notable show" but if you don't have the sources or any evidence to back up those claims, it obviously isn't true in this instance. - Aoidh (talk) 14:22, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I apologize if I haven't been clear. I don't "claim" that she meets WP:NACTOR #2, nor have I argued that the article should be kept, and I don't understand why you keep insisting that I have. In the case that the subject is found not to have adequate notability for a dedicated article (which is the most likely outcome), I think it should be blanked and redirected to the main article. There are no notability requirements for that, and it seems obvious that it would be in the best interests of Wikipedia in this case - see also the comments from and . Several people have !voted to "keep". It's not impossible for an actor to be considered notable for a single role. If someone can make a reasonable argument based on the fan base, I would not oppose it. AfD outcomes are decided by consensus and common sense, taking the guidelines into consideration. The guidelines are meant to reflect consensus, not to dictate it. I am simply not interested in making arguments either for or against keeping; only against a straight delete of the page and its history, with no redirect. I hope that's not a problem, and we can drop this discussion. Thanks. -- IamNotU (talk) 16:25, 18 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete - searches show she clearly doesn't pass WP:GNG, and she doesn't pass WP:NACTOR.  Onel 5969  TT me 15:31, 21 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.