Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tina Caspary


 * 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. Randykitty (talk) 11:31, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Tina Caspary

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Procedural nomination on behalf of an IP editor. Their rationale is:

Subject appeared in a few small films and was an extra in a couple large ones, but there's literally NO reliable coverage of this individual. I didn't even find any passing mentions, rather just inclusion in databases like IMDb. Obvious WP:GNG fail. Article has slid under the radar for years, supported by crumbly self-published articles about businesses that don't even exist any more.

I'd appreciate if someone could nominate this for deletion, as I don't have an account and don't want to open one just for this. Thanks. 2A02:C7F:8E0C:6600:190A:3502:884A:E0BD (talk) 20:24, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

I have no opinion on the matter, but of course I might put in a !vote of my own later. Reyk YO! 07:31, 14 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete as suggester. There's just nothing about her, making for a patent GNG fail. I talked with another user at Afd yesterday who argued that her peak was "pre-internet", but really? Countless outlets have their historical articles online now, and there's still zero about this person. Many performers peaked pre-internet and yet have articles covering them (Danny Lloyd, Jeff Cohen, Charlie Korsmo etc.). 2A02:C7F:8E0C:6600:E4E0:7F41:22:B075 (talk) 10:32, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The nomination counts as your delete vote so another vote is not permitted Atlantic306 (talk) 10:42, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Many older newspapers of the 1980s/1990s are behind paywalls such as proquest, factia, newspapers.com etc and not available freely on the internet Atlantic306 (talk) 10:45, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
 * They are, but to think there's going to be significant coverage behind paywalls, when there is literally nothing about this person on the entire free internet, is an monstrous stretch. 2A02:C7F:8E0C:6600:E4E0:7F41:22:B075 (talk) 12:58, 14 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Time and again at AFD sources can only be found behind paywalls Atlantic306 (talk) 12:54, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep as passes WP:NACTOR with prominent main roles in Can't Buy Me Love (film) and the cult classic Mac and Me, this actress is pre-internet so a google search is not sufficient as there is likely to be press coverage and film magazine articles that are offline, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 10:42, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
 * If being pre-internet so heavily restricts available referencing, then why is it no problem to come by articles about the aforementioned 80s actors?
 * Also, why are you editing her article to say she had "main" roles in films? Looks an awful lot like rigging to present her as a lead actor, which she never was. 2A02:C7F:8E0C:6600:E4E0:7F41:22:B075 (talk) 11:57, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
 * She had main roles in the two aforementioned films, and you are downplaying in the article which is the rigging. Also do you have a real world connection to the actress as you changed information regarding her husband ? Atlantic306 (talk) 12:02, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Ha, you're now trying to frame me as someone who knows and personally dislikes the subject: your agenda is crystallised. You made a silly "pre-internet" argument yesterday, and now you don't want to lose face. WP:Wikipedia is not about winning. I removed marriage information because the article asserted that she married before she was born. Awful.
 * I'm rigging? Um, no: I'm pointing out that nothing has ever been written about this actor in the history of human language.
 * And yeah, supporting roles would be the commonly used term. "Main" suggests "lead". And you seem very determined to ram this in. 2A02:C7F:8E0C:6600:E4E0:7F41:22:B075 (talk) 12:14, 14 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Main role is a common term, and you seem very well acqainted with guidelines for a new user so are looking like a sockpuppet Atlantic306 (talk) 12:49, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Utterly pathetic. "Main role" is so common that it doesn't even have a Wikipedia article, or redirect to anything (while leading actor and supporting actor, of course, have articles). You tried to frame me as someone with a personal agenda against the subject, and failed. Now you go for the ultimate "He's a sockpuppet"! straw-clutch. I ain't new pal - I've been editing here for over a year. And none of your face-saving desperation makes the subject in any way notable. 2A02:C7F:8E0C:6600:E4E0:7F41:22:B075 (talk) 12:56, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree with this. It seems to be a dynamic IP, thus changes regularly. If Atlantic306 has a reason for suspecting this IP to be a sockpuppet that goes beyond "this person's an IP and knows what they're doing", please take it to WP:SPI. Otherwise, they should drop this line of attack. That said, have you considered registering an account? You're under no obligation to, but being a dynamic IP has disadvantages like not being able to keep track of what you're doing, and nobody being able to leave a message on your talk page. Reyk YO! 13:52, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
 * One of my earliest experiences on Wiki was having a painstaking article overhaul keep being reverted for no apparent reason. Other editors intervened and chided the reverter for being anti-IP, and ever since then I've been kinda striking a blow for the lowly IP, especially since we're supposedly welcome here. Maybe it's misguided: I probably will get an account eventually. Thanks for the advice. 2A02:C7F:8E0C:6600:8454:B789:9482:ADB9 (talk) 21:54, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:21, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:21, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:21, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * possibly keep. I admit to not being certain what the rule of thumb is for N:NACtor # "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films".  In a proquest news archive search I can see her mentioned in multiple articles as having roles in  Can't Buy Me Love (film),  Mac and Me, Earth to Echo.  Whether three 2 minor films suffice to pass  "significant roles in multiple notable films"" I leave it to editors familiar with the usual threshold for NACTOR to judge.  I found no feature stories about her or any SIGCOV in the news archive search on her name  search, just articles about the films that credit her.  E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:28, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 11:34, 23 May 2018 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete on second look, fails WP:BASIC. She has a couple of roles inminor films, and I cannot find any other reliably sourced information about her.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:11, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete seems relevant unfortunately as I have searched Google and its archive and found nothing approaching quality referencing. 82.132.238.238 (talk) 11:43, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep She has enough verifiable, named roles to pass based on WP:NACTOR for "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." It makes sense that it's difficult to find online citations for all the roles considering she stopped acting in the 1980s, but enough are verifiable to establish notability. Lonehexagon (talk) 20:23, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep as clearly passing WP:NACTOR verified by the references provided by Lonehexagon. Sro23 (talk) 20:40, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   05:40, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Reluctant delete. The reason that we have inclusion criteria like WP:NACTOR is because it lets us have a rationale for keeping subjects that could eventually turn into good encyclopedia articles full of interesting, readable prose. This subject maybe passes NACTOR with two lead roles in arguably notably important films, which just gets her nose over the bar of NACTOR. But the spirit of the guideline is not being met: our goal is to have an interesting prose article, and this is not one and possibly won't ever be. This article doesn't tell you anything that your brain won't infer from a glance at Ms Caspary's IMDB page. I'm sympathetic to the idea that there's loads of offline sources for this subject, and if someone comes back from the library with an armload of them, no one should stop you from re-creating the article.  A  Train talk 08:29, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
 * What do you mean our goal is to have an "interesting prose article"? What I find interesting, you may not. That's completely subjective. Sro23 (talk) 02:05, 7 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete- seems to sneak over the WP:NACTOR bar, but this only provides a rebuttable presumption of notability. As with all such notability guidelines it's expected that WP:N eventually be met. And after all this scrutiny it doesn't seem to be. Reyk <b style="color: Blue;">YO!</b> 08:55, 31 May 2018 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.