Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eline Powell (2nd nomination)

Eline Powell

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

No indication of notability. There are three possibly-useful references beyond a bunch of interviews, other non-independent sources and passing mentions, HLN, Deadline and Hollywood Reporter. Deadline doesn't say much and not what it's cited for, and Hollywood Reporter uses a single sentence to pan Powell's performance in what appears to have been her most notable role. HLN is "local woman has big success"-style human-interest reporting. That's not enough. I started removing unreliably-sourced content and found that I could just go on removing. Having had roles is not enough; reliable third-party sources must actually discuss the actor for us to be able to write a meaningful article. Huon (talk) 00:37, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:42, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:42, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:43, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:43, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:43, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Plays the main role on US-TV-series Siren (TV series). Being the main actress of a TV series that meanwhile spans two seasons, makes you noticeable.--Robberey1705 (talk) 00:48, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Then surely you can find some reliable sources that actually discuss her in some detail, beyond telling us that her parents live in Flanders and she likes to visit them. Huon (talk) 01:19, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep articles with more in-depth coverage linked from her articles in nl-wiki and fr-wiki. But even without GNG, her lead role in Siren added to named roles in GoT, Quartet, etc. surely add up to NACTOR, IMO. HouseOfChange (talk) 02:10, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Articles"? I don't see those; there's one French piece which lists the famous actors she played next to, but other than that? Notability is not inherited. Huon (talk) 13:34, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Too many people on this website think just having your name in parentheses next to a role is notability as an actor (it’s not). Without independent reliable sources, it makes no sense. One of the source here is Instagram ffs. Trillfendi (talk) 03:14, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Lead on an American TV series with wide distribution. WP:N more than clinched. Nate • (chatter) 03:37, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Verifiably passes WP:NACTOR#1. WP:N is clear that passing an SNG is enough to merit an article, and that the state of sourcing in the article is not a reason for deletion. Bakazaka (talk) 04:07, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's wrong. From the guideline you link to: "People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards. Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included." (Emphasis mine.) Huon (talk) 13:34, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:N: "A topic is presumed to merit an article if: 1. It meets either the general notability guideline below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right; and 2. It is not excluded under the What Wikipedia is not policy." Bakazaka (talk) 16:00, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Huon da du ja deutsch al Muttersprache angibst, sag ich es dir mal auf deutsch: es macht den Anschein, dass du unbedingt willst, dass dieser Artikel gelöscht wird (und er stand schon mal zur Diskussion und wurde da auch nicht gelöscht wird). Das lässt sich schon deiner fadenscheinigen Argumentation entnehmen. Wie willst du einer schauspielerin, die in mehreren Werken die Hauptrolle spielte und in mehreren Sprachen Wiki-Artikel hat, die Relevanz absprechen? Keep the article.--Robberey1705 (talk) 13:54, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Robberey1705: WP:AGF. Although I disagree with Huon on this nomination, there are many understandable reasons for him to have his own opinion on this article. The main problem is that most of the recent press interest in EP has been people who want to talk about her role as a mermaid, not about her life and background. If all the people to whom she has explained her prosthetic tail, her study classical sources and watching video of ocean predators, etc. had instead asked about her childhood, travels, etc. then we would have lots of the source material that would make her bio better. Second, the article had much poor sourcing in it but is missing much useful stuff. With the second season about to begin, my Google news search turns up multiple articles (including the Boston Herald article now in there) that were published only within the past week. I am hoping that by WP:HEY, improving the article's sources and information will convince Huon that it belongs here now, even though he was reasonable to think it was very substandard as of a week ago. HouseOfChange (talk) 17:28, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She meets WP:NACTOR #1, and there are enough reliable sources confirming that (many unreliable sources which would be better removed, but the Dutch source, Variety and the Boston Herald are OK). — Preceding unsigned comment added by RebeccaGreen (talk • contribs)

Comment on interviews I did some research in GAs about actors, specifically Hank Azaria and Halle Berry. They use interviews and other reports of the subject's own words for many facts about the subject's personal life. This fits with our policy WP:ABOUTSELF, where many categories of people's statements about themselves are acceptable RS if "the article is not based primarily on such sources." I also looked at what WP:N for guidance about whether interviews (published by RS independent of the subject) can be considered "significant coverage" required for GNG. Our policy WP:N does not exclude them. Instead, WP:N makes it clear that the reason notability relies on secondary sources (in this case, the publisher of the interview is the secondary source) is to demonstrate "verifiable evaluation of notability" and "objective evidence of notability." HouseOfChange (talk) 01:06, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep there was no consensus to delete the last time the article was nominated. Since then, Powell has played a lead role in a cable TV series and there is more than enough coverage in reliable sources to meet wp:nactor and wp:gng. Dcfc1988 (talk) 17:35, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]