Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charlie Ray (3rd nomination)

Charlie Ray

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

3rd nomination for this article (1st=Keep, 2nd=Redirect to Little Manhattan).

Since the last nomination (and thus, the resulting decision) are close to a year old, I figured it would make sense to re-evaluate the situation as the previous decision is being "overturned" by an editor.

Non-notable actress. Article fails WP:GNG, sources given are all primary sources.

I recommend reinstating the redirect to Little Manhattan or deleting the page all together. ~ | twsx | ^talk_cont | ~ 09:29, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ~ | twsx | ^talk_cont | ~ 09:37, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend KEEPING the page. She is an actress who is notable, having acted in film, television, then film again as recent as 2013. Redirecting her Wikipedia page to a film that contains no information on her is ridiculous. Prior AfD stated that original page should be reinstated if she became "notable". She is classified as an actress, has appeared in multiple mediums, and is represented by an agent. It doesn't get much more "notable" than that. I think Twsx is confusing "notable" with "famous". She has an offical facebook page, official twitter (which states "I do movies"), and most obviously, a page on IMDB stating that she is an active actress available for movies.71.82.209.86 (talk) 09:36, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as previously. Fails WP:NACTOR: only has a single significant role. Aside from reviews of the film, I can't find much press about her on a quick search[1], though maybe others will have more luck. Having a Twitter or Facebook does nothing to show notability: I could put up a Facebook and Twitter page that says "I'm an actress looking for work" but it wouldn't make me notable. IMDb isn't considered a suitable source for establishing notability either, because its standards are more generous than Wikipedia's. (However, properly referenced material about her could be added to the article Little Manhattan.) --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:17, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:19, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To blindly go from "she's starred in film and television" to completely deleting her page is foolish, reckless, and while some believe it may not fit the letter of the law here, it does fit the spirit of Wikipedia. There are a hundred other child actors with one movie credit yet still have an entire page dedicated to them. Why is she being singled out? Again, her being a hirable actress with an agent AND starring in more than one film as well as having multiple roles on television programs provides her with notability. This is not "some guy that was on the news once 8 years ago", this is an actress with multiple roles. Obviously she will not have a huge resume having started her acting career young and still going through school but the fact that she has been in the business in multiple mediums for years speaks for itself. 71.82.209.86 (talk) 11:28, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]