Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Josephine Gillan

Josephine Gillan

Josephine Gillan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per WP:BIO. Minor roles in one television show and one short film. Lack of significant coverage in reliable secondary sources, outside of IMDb and one primary source from the short film. Comatmebro (talk) 03:35, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 08:38, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 08:38, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 08:38, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

2 days! 2 days! after creation before this is nominated for deletion!! So why should it not be deleted?:

• 1. The page is already connected from 8 other sites. That is 8 other pages if you click on the link you'll get, "This page does not exist. Creating Josephine Gillan" - and yes the references were already there before I turned them into links.
• 2. 100s of actors have had small parts in Game of Thrones, but despite this Josephine Gillan still makes the list on Wikipedia for each of the seasons she is in. Why is that? A not insignificant fanbase probobly has something to do with it.
• 3. Game of Thrones is not just any TV series. Love it or loath it it is culturally significant and game changing. One feature is how disposable characters are. That the character of Marei wil survive through to series 8 is noteworthy in itself.
• 4. Josephine Gillan has a significant and important personal story which is sourced in national newspapers and other periodicals. I personally do not want to record it. Maybe someone else does.
• That enough? I hope so. If not, really I'm done with this!S.tollyfield (talk) 17:43, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

In regards to both 2 & 3, those both specifically makes the character notable, not the actress. WikiVirusC (talk) 16:35, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

• Keep. This very new article of a fairly new actress has now been expanded. (Edit: Nikkimaria just removed all my work, claiming "non-RS") GoT's inclusive ensemble awards since her casting passes actor notability. — Wyliepedia 11:39, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't think ensemble awards grant every cast member from the show instant notability. Some of those awards like the Screen Actor Guild(which GoT has been nominated multiple times never winning) list out the cast members that are being considered in the ensemble [1]. Gold Derby TV Awards, which GoT has won multiple times, I'm not sure if it is inclusive, even if it is, that can't automatically give every minor and supporting role in the series notability. She may WikiVirusC (talk) 16:35, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

She may...what? Yes, I tweaked and expanded her article with her background, leading into her GoT work, and then voted here, all within early morning hours for me and citing The Daily Mail. 'Tis true: if everyone in any ensemble is lumped in any such award, then individual articles might illogically get created. That wasn't the reason hers was, but was the reason for my vote along with the expansion. Now, it reads as a stub for a new mainstream actress in a pseudo-recurring TV role and some minor upcoming film roles. Should that be grounds for deletion, I don't think it should be salted in case her career blossoms further. — Wyliepedia 22:24, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

My comment was only towards the statement about Game Of Thrones winning ensemble awards isn't grants for every supporting/minor role to have(or keep) an article, for the reason you stated in your reply. I'm not saying she shouldn't have an article I was just commenting on the statement made. In Regards to "She may...", I was writing a new sentence(She may be notable apart from this reasoning but...). Then I deleted it, but only partially it seems. I was looking for other references to add to article but only could find the same Daily Mail & The Sun stuff or things quoting them in the short time I looked. WikiVirusC (talk) 22:57, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes, she tweeted and retweeted the TDM interview link, which tells me there's a grain of legitimacy about her background being made public, as I worded it in her article to not seem sensational. However, TDM's reputation for that will never satisfy any future legit interviews. The Sun echoed some of the same material with a few additions, but it also got wiped from her article. Her Cinderella story here will have to wait. — Wyliepedia 23:25, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

• Delete does not pass the notability threshold. That requires multiple significant roles in notable productions. One significant role just does not cut it, and it is debaltable weather her Game of Thrones role is significant.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:48, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SophisticatedSwampert ^{let's talk about that} 06:34, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Note: The Daily Mail and its associated website are no longer regarded as reliable sources for Wikipedia. Emeraude (talk) 08:23, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

• Comment Doesn't appear quite notable since most online stories basically repeat the same content, but it seems odd that there's no merge target or anywhere to include a small amount of info on her. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:28, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

GoT is her first mainstream role. The show is so vast, it's even impossible to mention how it "saved her life" even at List of Game of Thrones characters#Supporting cast. Her other film roles since are so recent and/or unnotable that there can never be a redirect-merge. That's why I suggested not salting. — Wyliepedia 13:24, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

• Delete - Fails WP:GNG, single story about her has been reported by (most significantly) the Mail and the Independent. This does not amount to significant coverage by any standards, there are countless examples of members of the public getting their name in the papers for a single story. Fails WP:NACTOR, which requires multiple, significant roles in notable productions. Gillan has had a single role as a tertiary character in a notable production. I have also seen and can find zero sources to suggest any kind of notable fan following, beyond the vague hunch in the keep comment above. Would not support salting until re-creation becomes an issue, as it is possible she will become notable in the future. El Pharao (talk) 19:36, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

• Keep . This article obviously meets WP:GNG. Their are many reliable sources about her and this page can be expanded, also she's on Game of Thrones. - AffeL (talk) 11:46, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

• Keep How can Abigail Ratchford be notable with just one appearance in Parks and Recreation let's count them...that's one... and Josephine Gillan not be!! It can't be right S.tollyfield (talk) 05:05, 7 July 2017 (UTC)