Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shannon Purser

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. Sandstein 06:10, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Shannon Purser

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

Doesn't meet the notability guidelines for people- short term "viral" fame only. jcc (tea and biscuits) 20:57, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:59, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I wouldn't have created an article on an actor with a single credit, but there's certainly coverage. I'm not too sure that a burst of recent coverage would disqualify someone from an article, as notability isn't temporary. She may pass WP:NACTOR criterion #2, which requires a cult following. For example, [1] from Vulture.com describes her character's viral popularity, though it seems to stop short of saying Parser herself has a cult following. This article from Esquire explicitly calls Purser a "cult icon". Perhaps because she's only had this one role, it's tough to separate the coverage of the character from the actress. So, I can see an argument that the character is the more notable of the two. If we made a new article on the character, Parser's article could conceivably redirect there until it's easier to establish notability for the actor beyond the role. I'd be curious to hear what others have to say. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:42, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. She's had about 5 minutes total screen time in her entire career. Wikipedia is not buzzfeed and should not get caught up with internet memes. Could be considered for an article if she gets more roles. MaxBrowne (talk) 03:10, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep has at least two reliable sources discussing her to some degree, and was in three episodes as more than a bit part. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:30, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - A role in a notable TV show doesn't make the personality notable. Let her act in some more ventures and then we can possibly talk about a separate article. Yes, she is a subject of online virality, but what is that based on: the TV show. Hence, delete. Best, Mr. Nair Talk 11:55, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Her portrayal of Barb should be considered her breakout role (performance of an actor or actress in a film or television show which contributed significantly to the development of their career and beginning of critical recognition), even though it's the first credit. The resulting notability has served to bring attention to her acting.

According to the Duffer brothers who are the show runners, with the introduction of the second season the character will still be a part of the show in some form [2] [3]. I believe it would be premature to delete before then, regardless I am open to the suggestion made by NinjaRobotPirate on having Purser's article redirect to a Barb character page.

She is a fan favorite for the titular role of Squirrel girl in a proposed marvel movie [4][5][6]

She passes the following criteria of the notability requirement:
WP:NACTOR Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following.
WP:SUSTAINED WP:NTEMP Due to on going coverage and recognition from numerous reputable sources.
WP:ARTN WP:CONTN Article content does not determine notability. Irregardless of whether we choose to delete this article on her, it will have no bearing on ongoing coverage of her in other media.
WP:NRVE WP:NRV Notability guidelines require that there must be verifiable, objective evidence that the subject has received significant attention from independent sources to support a claim of notability.

According to WP:BASIC People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published, secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. People who meet the basic criteria may be considered notable without meeting the additional criteria. She has been interviewed and written about extensively in the Los Angeles Times [7], Huffington Post[8], Hollywood Reporter[9], Vanity fair[10], Tech Insider[11], Washington Post[12], Entertainment Tonight[13], Glamour Magazine [14], BI [15] and numerous other media outlets.

Both Nairspecht and MaxBrowne claim that having a single credit is reason enough to delete this article. This is erroneous and over looks several iconic characters whose actors only stared in a singular role or production but have had long standing notability. Case in point Peter Ostrum a veterinarian and former child actor whose only role was as Charlie Bucket in the 1971 motion picture Willy Wonka & the Chocolate Factory. RubenSuben (talk) 01:30, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Squirrel Girl stuff is trivial and not even worth mentioning in the article. She wants to play a part in a movie that hasn't even been announced? Big deal. Plenty of other actors have had their articles deleted on the basis that they only had one notable role, e.g. Hannah Pilkes in The Woodsman, Wendy Grantham in The Wire. The comparison with Peter Ostrum is erroneous because Ostrum had a lead role in the movie. Purser played a minor character with 5 minutes of screen time who for some reason went viral. It's the character rather than the actor who got so much attention. MaxBrowne (talk) 05:53, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Squirrel Girl stuff is only mentioned here in accordance to WP:ARTN for purposes of demonstrating that she meets several criteria of the notability requirement, which Nairspecht and MaxBrowne claim doesn't exist. Both Hannah Pilkes in The Woodsman, Wendy Grantham in The Wire don't meet the bare minimum of WP:BASIC , irregardless of that Hannah Pilkes still has a wikipedia article.

I can cite numerous examples of actors with single credits who have had their own Wikipedia pages since their breakout roles. But for brevity two come to mind Azharuddin Mohammed Ismail and Rubina Ali who acted as the child versions of Salim K. Malik, Jamal's elder brother and his girlfriend. They obtained notability due to their acting and their socioeconomic circumstances as homeless slum dwellers. Despite not meeting any of the three major notability requirements for entertainers WP:ENT.

While the time spent so far on screen in her recurring role is indeed short, the claim that it's only five minutes is inaccurate and can be considered irrelevant rhetoric if she more than meets the wikipedia notability requirement, the premise of this discussion.

No where in the guidelines does it state that having a singular credit or "five minutes" screen time serves as a disqualification. RubenSuben (talk) 09:30, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:48, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Actually there is indeed a notability guideline that relates to actors' screen time, and with only 3 episodes of one show she definitely does not qualify under item 1 of WP:NACTOR. She does not meet item 3 either ("unique, prolific or innovative contributions"). I don't see sufficient evidence to suggest she meets item 2 either ("large fan base or a significant 'cult' following"). This doesn't disqualify her from being notable. but it does mean she has to meet WP:BASIC and I'm not seeing it. Most of the coverage of her seems to be of the "Here's this great new character, and by the way, let's mention the actor who plays the part." If this show was cancelled tomorrow and the actress never had another role would she be notable? I don't think so. WP:TOOSOON. Meters (talk) 02:37, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per what Meters said. Fails WP:BIO, WP:N and WP:NACTOR. Edison (talk) 13:50, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The guidelines do not require one to meet all three items of the WP:ENT section of WP:NACTOR, or even any of them if WP:GNG and WP:BASIC is met. Since WP:ENT is considered additional criteria, should WP:GNG be in doubt. Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included as stated by WP:BASIC.
- The subject (Shannon Purser) has been shown to fulfill all five aspects of WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list.
- Meters misquotes WP:TOOSOON which is very clear that the various notability criteria that guide editors in creating articles, require that the topic being considered be itself verifiable in independent secondary reliable sources. If sources do not exist, it is when WP:TOOSOON applies.
- WP:TOOSOON also applies if WP:INVALIDBIO as is the case with the WP:TOOSOON guiding example Paris Jackson in WP:NOT YET (actors) since she has zero acting credits and notability is not inherited WP:NOTINHERITED.
- However in this case as already shown above. The subject (Shannon Purser) already has an acting credit as a recurring character in several episodes in a popular on going tv show and continuous coverage by numerous independent reliable secondary sources, according to guidelines set by WP:GNG. Therefore WP:TOOSOON does not apply.
- According to Meters, "If this show was cancelled..", this alone violates WP:BALL and WP:SPECULATION since Wikipedia is not a crystal ball WP:NOT. The guidelines state, "It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, if discussion is properly referenced. It is not appropriate for editors to insert their own opinions or analyses."
- Quoting WP:GNGACTOR "Conversely, an actor with a brief career might receive wide coverage in multiple reliable sources and merit inclusion through meeting the requirements of the General Notability Guideline WP:GNG even though his short career might fail WP:ENT. Failing ENT does not exclude him."
- The guidelines are quite clear and well defined. Meters it would be great if you provided the specific notability guideline that you claim relates to screen time and acts as an absolute dis-qualifier for the subject by overriding WP:GNG .
- Edison, WP:BIO and WP:N are simply shortcuts that all redirect to WP:NACTOR and are superseded by WP:GNG and WP:BASIC. RubenSuben (talk) 16:45, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - You are, sadly, wrong. Edison (talk) 22:31, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There's too much WP:WTF? OMG! TMD TLA. ARG! going on. Plain English is always preferable. MaxBrowne (talk) 15:47, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment While MaxBrowne might have a point. Guidelines state that AfDs are not about voting or personal opinion. The outcome of a deletion discussion is determined on the basis of reference to policies and guidelines, not a simple headcount. As per WP:SUPPORT It is possible for an AfD that has 1 keep and 10 deletes to be kept (or vice versa).
By directly referencing specific policies the intention was to be precise and unambiguous. RubenSuben (talk) 17:24, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment RubenSuben, I did point to the exact guidelines I was referencing. WP:NACTOR and the more general case of personal notability, WP:BASIC. As I expleained, in my opinion she does not meet the requirements of notability for entertainers, and she does not meet the more general requirements of notability. Since I don't see her as being notable now, I quoted WP:TOOSOON as an indication that she may become notable in the future if her career continues. Meters (talk) 18:44, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Internet fame is still fame; shortlived fame is still fame. This actor is the subject of numerous articles in the media,so I ludge her notability to be greater than mere "viral fame" would create, satisfying WP:GNG. And if, a year from now, this proves to be mistaken, we can delete it then.j· rodii · 16:39, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As much as I hate to disagree with Cas Liber, I do not think that a few minutes and a few mentions, even if positive, add up to notability. Drmies (talk) 02:23, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Has had a significant role in television series, which has extended to cult interest in her. I also note that she was cast today in the upcoming television series Riverdale. Clearly this is an actress on the up, and it would be completely pointless to delete the article, especially as she clearly meets notability guidelines. Somethingwickedly (talk) 22:58, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Gained significant media coverage from role on Stranger Things, and has been cast on the upcoming broadcast series Riverdale, which adds up to notability.Bjones (talk) 15:15, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per NinjaRobotPirate plus check out 3000+ pageviews per day (unofficial measure, but strong correlation with notability).--Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:40, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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.