Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tina Jung


 * 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. North America1000 18:54, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Tina Jung

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Subject lacks notability and coverage in reliable sources. Meatsgains (talk) 01:23, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 07:17, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 07:17, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 07:18, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 07:18, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete. An actress does not get an automatic free pass over WP:NACTOR just because she's had a role — her role in Kim's Convenience was a minor guest appearance in two episodes, not a main character, and we have no way to know whether she's playing a major or minor character in Jigsaw since the casting has been announced but the plot and characters aren't known at all yet. For an actress to be considered notable just for having had roles, she has to be the subject of enough reliable source coverage to clear WP:GNG — but exactly zero reliable sources about her are being shown here, since the sourcing consists of her IMDb profile, an alumni profile on the website of her own alma mater, and a casting announcement for Jigsaw which just namechecks her existence while failing to contain even one word of content about her besides her name. This is not the kind of sourcing that it takes to get an actress into Wikipedia. No prejudice against recreation if and when the sourcing can be improved. Bearcat (talk) 23:37, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  09:08, 25 July 2017 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Linguist 1 1 1 21:04, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete As above minor role. Deathlibrarian (talk) 06:07, 3 August 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.