Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Katherine C. Hughes

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 20:12, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Katherine C. Hughes

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

PR-like and IMDb-PR-agent like article as my PROD was removed without actually taking care of the concerns, albeit at least adding a few sources; still, nothing is actually comparably better once looking at the IMDb list and seeing none of this is actually convincing of her own notability at all. SwisterTwister talk 06:45, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:08, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:01, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is WP:TOOSOON. Fails GNG and WP:ENT. The most substantial role is a supporting role and all others are guest apprearances. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 11:53, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:44, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (a weak one) Usually 120 pageviews a day correlates with notability. She is getting lots of acting work, and a mention in the Hollywood Reporter and lots of Getty photos but nothing much in-depth yet, but the volume of her work suggests she's here to stay. So a weak keep.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:03, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Even as an entertainer, she would not be notable, as actually significant works would be needed, not simply guest star characters and other trivial works, and it seems to be the case here of not having enough substantial work, thus the article still would not be convincing. SwisterTwister talk 22:24, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reported views is absolutely not a measure for notability... The question is whether sourcing exists, not whether clicks exist. czar 02:58, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She has named roles in multiple shows and a starring role in the film based on a popular Young Adult novel. Passes NACTOR. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:59, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Umm, NACTOR requires "significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows". Named role doesn't mean significant. Also that role in Me and Earl and the Dying Girl (film) is definitely not a starring role. It's a supporting character at best. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 01:12, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: As per WP:NACD, I've overturned this non-admin close in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator. This comment by the closer explicitly states that he closed based on (a) quantity of votes and (b) the existence of a VIAF file. As per WP:CONSENSUS, this is a discussion rather than a vote. The VIAF file was never brought up by any participant of this discussion, so basing a close on that certainly trends toward a supervote. I've overturned the closure based on both of these issue, and any uninvolved editor may reclose according to the relevant policies and guidelines. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 07:01, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
keep young actress getting roles, including several in films taht will be released later in 2016 and in 2017.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:38, 23 August 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.